GMG Classical Music Forum

America is an attractive place to live for many people all over the world, and I think an ethnic plurality is often a good thing, but I feel that people speaking different languages in the same country isolates and divides us from one another, and that immigrants should pass a comprehensive English test before becoming a citizen.

What do you think?

Quote from: Kullervo on July 01, 2007, 09:49:57 PM
America is an attractive place to live for many people all over the world, and I think an ethnic plurality is often a good thing, but I feel that people speaking different languages in the same country isolates and divides us from one another, and that immigrants should pass a comprehensive English test before becoming a citizen.

What do you think?

The United States has no official language as a whole. Congress, and - likely - the American people, through a Constitutional amendment, would have to mandate English as the official national language before any requirements are made. Also, with the meteoric rise of Spanish in the American southwest (and in parts of states like Indiana), who's to say English will be the majority (or even plurality) language of the future? Shouldn't we just let the "linguistic market" determine the regional or even national linguae francae? To me, that seems less intrusive and more tolerant of social diversity. One can, to my mind, furthermore, create a base-line "American culture" without mandating language. I would rather have people who respect American cultures and tradition, and want to be part of that, regardless of language. Languages come and go. Cultural identity, once created, is hard to destroy.

They should speak English, not because of any laws or principles.... they should do it because it is in THEIR best interest to do so.

Emphatically yes. Whatever the "official" status may be, at this time English is de facto the more or less "official" language of the US. And while the US as such does not have an official language, several states actually do. For instance in California, strange as that may seem since there are megatons of people here who speak no or only very little English, English *is* the official language.

What I find pretty bizarre is that when foreigners like me are *legally* imported by an US employer, there is *a lot* of paperwork involved for them to attain the permission to employ a foreigner, and a large part of that is proving that the potential employee has some "rare and highly specialized skills" and that the employer needs those skills in order to fill the position.

And that seems to make total sense. Why should they let people in to do unqualified, unspecialized work?

No, wait - they *do* let them in, by the hundreds of thousands, without any paperwork or fees. They even provide the illegals with social services. Go figure.

At the same time, an employer and employee who go the legal way have to submit all that proof and pay a lot of fees, but guess what? *They don't even check or demand proof that the applicant speaks any English*. And you simply can not work in a "highly skilled or specialized" position in the US without speaking at least half decent English. Because the definition of those skills is not something somehow skilled in the sense of knowing a complicated craft or being able to do complicated magic tricks or whatever. It is defined as something for which you need extensive training or formal studies which resulted in or add up to at least a bachelor's degree or equivalent. In other words, the academic factor is important, and so is the fact that the employee will work in a "higher" position which will definitely require interaction with and often supervision of other employees.

All that is de facto not possible in a qualified position in that sense in the US as it is today. Yet they don't even test that.  No kidding. 


Personally, it totally pisses me off that I run into people all the time who don't speak English and who don't even try. After all, I am a foreigner, too, and I do speak English. I find that respectless and wonder what contribution they think they are here to make. In fact, even though I understand some and can make myself understood in Spanish, in some situations I refuse to communicate with them in Spanish, for instance when I visit job sites and run into workers there who don't speak English. Since I have all gone through all that paperwork to prove how incredibly qualified I am several times over (and my past and present employers between them have paid more than $16,000 in fees for that over the last 4 years), I don't see why I have to deal with people who are apparently here without having some basic qualifications like speaking English.

When I am in Mexico, I always try to speak Spanish because that's what the pople there speak. When they come here, they should try to extend the same courtesy towards the locals.

Quote from: M forever on July 02, 2007, 01:09:10 AM
Emphatically yes. Whatever the "official" status may be, at this time English is de facto the more or less "official" language of the US. And while the US as such does not have an official language, several states actually do. For instance in California, strange as that may seem since there are megatons of people here who speak no or only very little English, English *is* the official language.

What I find pretty bizarre is that when foreigners like me are *legally* imported by an US employer, there is *a lot* of paperwork involved for them to attain the permission to employ a foreigner, and a large part of that is proving that the potential employee has some "rare and highly specialized skills" and that the employer needs those skills in order to fill the position.

And that seems to make total sense. Why should they let people in to do unqualified, unspecialized work?

No, wait - they *do* let them in, by the hundreds of thousands, without any paperwork or fees. They even provide the illegals with social services. Go figure.

At the same time, an employer and employee who go the legal way have to submit all that proof and pay a lot of fees, but guess what? *They don't even check or demand proof that the applicant speaks any English*. And you simply can not work in a "highly skilled or specialized" position in the US without speaking at least half decent English. Because the definition of those skills is not something somehow skilled in the sense of knowing a complicated craft or being able to do complicated magic tricks or whatever. It is defined as something for which you need extensive training or formal studies which resulted in or add up to at least a bachelor's degree or equivalent. In other words, the academic factor is important, and so is the fact that the employee will work in a "higher" position which will definitely require interaction with and often supervision of other employees.

All that is de facto not possible in a qualified position in that sense in the US as it is today. Yet they don't even test that.  No kidding. 


Personally, it totally pisses me off that I run into people all the time who don't speak English and who don't even try. After all, I am a foreigner, too, and I do speak English. I find that respectless and wonder what contribution they think they are here to make. In fact, even though I understand some and can make myself understood in Spanish, in some situations I refuse to communicate with them in Spanish, for instance when I visit job sites and run into workers there who don't speak English. Since I have all gone through all that paperwork to prove how incredibly qualified I am several times over (and my past and present employers between them have paid more than $16,000 in fees for that over the last 4 years), I don't see why I have to deal with people who are apparently here without having some basic qualifications like speaking English.

When I am in Mexico, I always try to speak Spanish because that's what the pople there speak. When they come here, they should try to extend the same courtesy towards the locals.

From where do you hail, M?

...and when the numbers of Spanish speaking Latinos are in the majority, then what...?

Then it will be Mexico, and then it won't matter anymore anyway.

Quote from: Kullervo on July 02, 2007, 05:58:35 AM
From where do you hail, M?

I'll give you a hint:
(http://www.andreas.com/pixs/berlinwall-t.jpg)

(http://www.fim.musin.de/Cyberlernen/elke1/Bild10.gif)

Gosh, and here I was hoping this was a thread about the Penguin Cafe Orchestra . . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on July 02, 2007, 06:40:26 AM
Gosh, and here I was hoping this was a thread about the Penguin Cafe Orchestra . . . .

8)

Quote from: Hector on July 02, 2007, 06:28:34 AM
...and when the numbers of Spanish speaking Latinos are in the majority, then what...?

What do you mean, "then what"? Is that supposed to be a threat?

No, this poll was not aimed at Spanish-speaking Latinos, or any ethnic group, but at all immigrants that do not bother to learn English before coming to the states.

My opinion is same with Teddy Roosevelt; if you choose come to this country, then drop the whatever cultural baggage you have, you are an American, you speak English. It's that simple. Or else, go back where you came from!

yeah, i think they should.
That's one of the things my dad complains about sometimes, how it's different for some of the people he knows, like this one guy who used to live in France. It's more necessary to speak French there if you're living there, and that's it should be. If you come to America, you need to know English.

I'd say most people who do come here actually make an effort to do so, but it's hard. I can imagine from a foreigner's point of view that English would be an extremely hard language to speak and even write, but it's better to practice than not doing anything at all and just hang around the people who do speak your language.

So when I see those Ingles sin Barreras commercials on TV played nearly every commercial break on Univision or Telefutura, i know it's a good thing.  8)

Quote from: MahlerTitan on July 02, 2007, 07:02:10 AM
My opinion is same with Teddy Roosevelt; if you choose come to this country, then drop the whatever cultural baggage you have, you are an American, you speak English. It's that simple. Or else, go back where you came from!

That is way too much, a view from a time fortunately long gone. I think it's obscene to refer to immigrants' backgrounds as "cultural baggage". If people wouldn't have brought all that "baggage" with them, then there wouldn't be much here. No, people who immigrate into another country should bring all that with them and enrichen their new homeland.

They should just learn the basics of how to be a part of their new community, and that is most certainly the most widely spoken language, "official" or not. Whatever else they do, what lifestyle they chose to live, what cultural elements they want to keep or adopt, should be completely up to them.

An exception would be if people are granted asylum because they are fleeing from persecution in their original homeland. Obviously, you can't make their fate depend on a language test or similar in such a situation.

Quote from: MahlerTitan on July 02, 2007, 07:02:10 AM
My opinion is same with Teddy Roosevelt; if you choose come to this country, then drop the whatever cultural baggage you have, you are an American, you speak English. It's that simple. Or else, go back where you came from!

I don't agree with this view. As I noted in my original post, I'm all for an "ethnic plurality," that is, not exactly a "melting pot," but a healthy mix of different cultures that adds up to one great culture.

Although, I understand what you mean to say. Speaking a different language from everyone else certainly counts as "baggage" in my book.

Quote from: M forever on July 02, 2007, 07:30:26 AM
That is way too much, a view from a time fortunately long gone. I think it's obscene to refer to immigrants' backgrounds as "cultural baggage". If people wouldn't have brought all that "baggage" with them, then there wouldn't be much here. No, people who immigrate into another country should bring all that with them and enrichen their new homeland.

They should just learn the basics of how to be a part of their new community, and that is most certainly the most widely spoken language, "official" or not. Whatever else they do, what lifestyle they chose to live, what cultural elements they want to keep or adopt, should be completely up to them.

again, i am saying this because it is in their best interest to do so. Imagine that you are a new immigrant, you come to a new culture, new language new way of life, what do you want really? You want to fit in, and make friends, and blend with the new community. To do that, you must forget your old culture (for now atleast) and immerse your self in the new one. Perhaps you could show some of oyur heritage when you are accepted into the community, but until then, it is best if you speak English, and wear appropriate clothing. This is especially true for a teenager, it is very tough for a teenager to come from one culture to another, and for his/her own sake, it is important to blend in first.

What a horrible idea. If immigrants didn't bring many elements of their "old" culture with them, then we would have complete monocultures everywhere, not the multilayered complexity that makes cultures everwhere interesting - and all interconnected. Imagine all the German immigrants had left their culture behind, then this country would hardly have any symphony orchestras.

is it just me, or does it sound all of you are arguing for what is basically the same thing?

all of you have basically said: "Learn the language and try to fit in with the culture while preserving your own culture", more or less. That's basically all there is to it.

Quote from: Kullervo on July 01, 2007, 09:49:57 PM
America is an attractive place to live for many people all over the world, and I think an ethnic plurality is often a good thing, but I feel that people speaking different languages in the same country isolates and divides us from one another, and that immigrants should pass a comprehensive English test before becoming a citizen.

What do you think?

You should try living in London mate. When out you hear a different language every few minutes. And that's not from tourists, it's from people who live here.

Quote from: sidoze on July 02, 2007, 10:39:51 AM
You should try living in London mate. When out you hear a different language every few minutes. And that's not from tourists, it's from people who live here.

Yes, who can forget Professor Higgins in that opening scene of My Fair Lady!

Quote from: karlhenning on July 02, 2007, 10:42:34 AM
Yes, who can forget Professor Higgins in that opening scene of My Fair Lady!

I can, thankfully :)

The irony is, though, that if you say "thankfully," you haven't forgotten, have you?  8)

Quote from: karlhenning on July 02, 2007, 10:42:34 AM
Yes, who can forget Professor Higgins in that opening scene of My Fair Lady!

But how will people know where the rain in Spain mainly stays if they can't speak English? They could go to the coast and expect a nice Summer storm, but never get it. Alas!

Everyone must learn English so they can find the rain in Spain.

>:D

Quote from: sidoze on July 02, 2007, 10:39:51 AM
You should try living in London mate. When out you hear a different language every few minutes. And that's not from tourists, it's from people who live here.

i know what you mean, though here it's mainly just Spanish. Other than that, I've had a friend who used to speak Chinese during lunchtime (with his other friends), an old boss i had spoke some language, whatever they speak in Yugoslavia, and then you'll have restaurants with mainly Italian or Chinese people. But basically, it's rare to hear anything but English or Spanish here.
But my opinion is that if you know English and you're around a crowd, speak it. Practice it, it'll only do good. People should out of respect for those around them, though i'll admit it sure is fun listening to people talk and trying to guess what language they're speaking, or if you know it, what they're saying.


oh wait..... when i mean around here, i don't mean around the tourist areas. That's where EVERYONE in the world visits. A few weeks ago at SeaWorld there was this little kid with this fan, with his family who was Indian or something. But they were speaking I have no idea what, i'd say statistically it was likely to be Hindi. So the kid blows the fan in my face, but i don't say anything, i just smile at him since i don't even know if he knows English. I think they did say a little in English though... a lot of people in India do know English, don't they? They just have a strong accent, like the people who take your phone calls and you can't understand them.

Quote from: sidoze on July 02, 2007, 10:39:51 AM
You should try living in London mate. When out you hear a different language every few minutes. And that's not from tourists, it's from people who live here.

Blech, no thanks.

Quote from: PSmith08 on July 01, 2007, 10:04:04 PM
The United States has no official language as a whole. Congress, and - likely - the American people, through a Constitutional amendment, would have to mandate English as the official national language before any requirements are made. Also, with the meteoric rise of Spanish in the American southwest (and in parts of states like Indiana), who's to say English will be the majority (or even plurality) language of the future? Shouldn't we just let the "linguistic market" determine the regional or even national linguae francae? To me, that seems less intrusive and more tolerant of social diversity. One can, to my mind, furthermore, create a base-line "American culture" without mandating language. I would rather have people who respect American cultures and tradition, and want to be part of that, regardless of language. Languages come and go. Cultural identity, once created, is hard to destroy.

I'm not sure I can agree with HedonismBot completely; perhaps it depends on when you ask. For example, if you asked even as recently as the early 1980s I would have said that a single "official" language was a good idea. How many countries on Earth have one? Even now, there should be official language(s), I think. Keep in mind that you aren't restricted to one, though. For example, Switzerland has four (German, Frenc, Italian, and Rhaeto-Romansch). I think it makes sense to do this, and always have. How can you function in your society, or it with you, if you don't even speak the local language?

By the way, in the United States, I think technically the Congress would not be able to do anything about this without a full Constitutional Amendment... each state is able to handle this on its own. Indeed, of the 49 states several have already passed laws making English their official language, and of those several have two official languages: Hawaiian in Hawaii, French in Louisiana, Spanish in New Mexico, and Yorkese in New York.

Yorkese?

I'm with M forever on this, immigrants could/should preserve their cultural traits and whatnot (including language) when they move...it is what makes a place diversified...if the black slaves forgot everything about their music there wouldn't be jazz or even rock in USA.

Quote from: JoshLilly on July 02, 2007, 10:56:38 AM

I'm not sure I can agree with HedonismBot completely; perhaps it depends on when you ask. For example, if you asked even as recently as the early 1980s I would have said that a single "official" language was a good idea. How many countries on Earth have one? Even now, there should be official language(s), I think. Keep in mind that you aren't restricted to one, though. For example, Switzerland has four (German, Frenc, Italian, and Rhaeto-Romansch). I think it makes sense to do this, and always have. How can you function in your society, or it with you, if you don't even speak the local language?

It depends on how you define your society. If your society is a Spanish-speaking neighborhood (or French, or German, or Dutch) and you are employed there, live there, and can attend to all your needs there, then knowing English would be useless. Language, without a proper context, which America does not have, is useless. It means nothing without context. Speaking in soul-crushingly boring terms, Deleuze and Guattari have shown in their Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature how the use of a majority language in no way guarantees cultural unity and cohesion. In fact, with context, it can be seen as a deeply subversive act. A Jewish Czech using German is a tenuous situation, speaking from a semiotic perspective. If you look at language and its uses as socially constructed, then you see how it is impossible to think of language as a unifying factor. As long as different cultures exist, there will be different languages, or dialects, at the least. America is built on plurality. You see my thrust, then. That is, by its nature, America lacks the necessary conditions for a "national" language. Bureaucracy needs a unified language, but confusing bureaucracy with culture is a mistake which will destroy utterly the latter.

Yes, which is why I don't completely disagree with HedonismBot, either. It's these pockets of pulled cultures that band together and become so large that many of their members need not even speak English. This is hardly unique to the United States, but it appears that in other places where this is heavily common, the people end up learning the local language at a higher rate. Hmm... now someone's going to ask my source on this statement, but I can't recall any. Maybe it just seems that way to me for some reason, like the person I worked with who lived 20 years in Brazil talked about it. He was originally from Taiwan, and in the big Brazilian cities there's "Little Germany", "Little China", so on. Maybe being legally "forced" to learn the language would change things, I don't know. I'm not advocating anything one way or another, but I do think it makes sense if everyone within a country could speak to each other. Of course, some countries like Switzerland can't reasonably expect this. Technically, the United States shouldn't either, considering what it gobbled up during its expansions over the years (French, Spanish, and who knows how many various languages of the mostly-vanished natives).

Quote from: greg on July 02, 2007, 10:51:30 AM
...an old boss i had spoke some language, whatever they speak in Yugoslavia, ...

That would depend on which part of the former Yugoslavia. The old Yugoslavia had three official languages: Serbo-Croatian (these days known officially as Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian - same thing, four main dialects, two different alphabets), Slovene and Macedonian and two recognized minority languages, which, however, weren't "official" languages: Hungarian and Albanian.

As to the main topic of the thread, having been an immigrant in two different countries, I see absolutely no reason why one shouldn't learn the local language. It's an intellectual enrichment one way or another.

As to MT's point, I disagree with the "leaving baggage behind" and blending in. It's a very American perspective in that in the US it is actually possible to just forget one's heritage and completely blend in - at least if you're white - because it is not an ethnic nation, but a political nation. In most other countries that simply doesn't work. You are always identified by your ethnicity and even if you are born there and speak as good or better than the locals, you are always considered something separate and in most places you have to work twice as hard as the locals to gain recognition. So forgetting your native tongue and just blending in is just not a realistic possibility in most places. Never mind that by rejecting your native language you are depriving yourself and your offspring of a rich cultural and intellectual experience that can give you a perspective the locals lack.

Since we are talking about Immigrants, people who for one reason or another is immigrating to a new country for good.

then, it is imperative for him/her to assimilate ASAP, because he/she is going to live in this place forever. Of course, no matter how he/she "drop" their culture, it's only on the surface; if you lived in Japan for a long time, it is doubtful you can just drop your Japanese heritage. But, for your best interest, when you are going out and meeting new people and interacting with locals, it is imperative for you to "Drop" your heritage at these circumstances. You can still teach your children your mother tongue, your heritage.

I am just speaking from a practical point of view, i have nothing against multi-culturalism. Suppose a newly immigrated person comes up to me ask for advice on how to fit in, this is the advice that i would give him/her.

Quote from: MahlerTitan on July 02, 2007, 11:55:15 AM
then, it is imperative for him/her to assimilate ASAP, because he/she is going to live in this place forever. Of course, no matter how he/she "drop" their culture, it's only on the surface; if you lived in Japan for a long time, it is doubtful you can just drop your Japanese heritage. But, for your best interest, when you are going out and meeting new people and interacting with locals, it is imperative for you to "Drop" your heritage at these circumstances. You can still teach your children your mother tongue, your heritage.

I fully understand what you're saying, but you are presenting a very American perspective. Except perhaps in Australia, Canada and maybe Chile - and even in those cases, mostly for white people only - that process can't be replicated. You are treated differently on the basis of your ethnicity in most places around the globe, since most places are ethnic nation states, where nation is defined through blood line.

You also forget that many immigrants don't immigrate with the intention of staying forever. Apart from places like the US which have built up a whole national mythology around attracting immigrants to stay forever, many people move temporarily at first, for better job prospects, to earn some money to build a house in their homeland etc. Often the temporary move turns into a permanent one more as a result of the inertia of the new lives they have started than as a result of any long term planning. So, psychologically a lot of immigrants don't approach immigration with the idea that the move is for good and that they therefore have to blend in and assimilate.

Quote from: M forever on July 02, 2007, 11:01:18 AM
Yorkese?

Zum Beispiel:

yes, i do have a heavy American Bias, because i really haven't been living in other nations. So, consider my comments only valid in America, other countries i don't know.

Quote from: PSmith08 on July 02, 2007, 11:29:39 AM
Speaking in soul-crushingly boring terms, Deleuze and Guattari have shown in their Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature how the use of a majority language in no way guarantees cultural unity and cohesion. In fact, with context, it can be seen as a deeply subversive act. A Jewish Czech using German is a tenuous situation, speaking from a semiotic perspective.

Huh? I don't know how boring that is, but it's just simply wrong. Kafka wasn't Czech, he was Bohemian German. Bohemia and Moravia were part of the Austro-Hungarian double monarchy during most of his life. The region was inhabited by both "ethnic" Czechs and Germans for centuries until the Germans got kicked out after WWII.

I know it's a little complicated. People often confuse modern political configurations with historical ones. And it really is very complicated once you get down into the detail. I think Bohemia at that time was something like a kingdom and the Habsburg Emperor in Vienna simply had it as part of his massive collection of territories. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was really more the private possession of the Habsburg dynasty than a coherent state. Actually, since 1867, it was technically two states since, at least in theory, Hungary then became something like an equal state to Austria. That's why it was called the "double monarchy". But more in theory than in reality. The status of all the dependent territories was more defined by what role the Habsburg dynasty played there than that they were technically part of Austria. Which they weren't. The Habsburgers had a serious collecting habit.

Which means, BTW, it is also wrong to identify Mahler as "Austrian". He wasn't. No more than Dvořák who wasn't "Austrian" either. But they were both subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But Mahler shared his mother language with all the Austrians and Germans. Seeing himself as part of a Jewish minority in a German minority among a Czech majority in a region which was itself a minor part of a big multi-national empire, his sense of "national identity" was a complex question for himself, to say the least.

Anyway, there is nothing deeply subversive about Kafka writing in German. That was simply his mother language and it also was more practical because there was a much bigger potential readership for literature in German than in Czech (and still is). But he also spoke Czech, apparently completely fluently.

It would have been more "interesting" if he had chosen to write in Czech, as part of a German minority in a region in which at that time a strong desire to become independent of the (German speaking) Austrian existed - a desire mostly felt by the Czech speaking part of the population.
But he didn't.

Quote from: M forever on July 02, 2007, 11:06:13 PM
Huh? I don't know how boring that is, but it's just simply wrong. Kafka wasn't Czech, he was Bohemian German. Bohemia and Moravia were part of the Austro-Hungarian double monarchy during most of his life. The region was inhabited by both "ethnic" Czechs and Germans for centuries until the Germans got kicked out after WWII.

I know it's a little complicated. People often confuse modern political configurations with historical ones. And it really is very complicated once you get down into the detail. I think Bohemia at that time was something like a kingdom and the Habsburg Emperor in Vienna simply had it as part of his massive collection of territories. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was really more the private possession of the Habsburg dynasty than a coherent state. Actually, since 1867, it was technically two states since, at least in theory, Hungary then became something like an equal state to Austria. That's why it was called the "double monarchy". But more in theory than in reality. The status of all the dependent territories was more defined by what role the Habsburg dynasty played there than that they were technically part of Austria. Which they weren't. The Habsburgers had a serious collecting habit.

Which means, BTW, it is also wrong to identify Mahler as "Austrian". He wasn't. No more than Dvořák who wasn't "Austrian" either. But they were both subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But Mahler shared his mother language with all the Austrians and Germans. Seeing himself as part of a Jewish minority in a German minority among a Czech majority in a region which was itself a minor part of a big multi-national empire, his sense of "national identity" was a complex question for himself, to say the least.

Anyway, there is nothing deeply subversive about Kafka writing in German. That was simply his mother language and it also was more practical because there was a much bigger potential readership for literature in German than in Czech (and still is). But he also spoke Czech, apparently completely fluently.

It would have been more "interesting" if he had chosen to write in Czech, as part of a German minority in a region in which at that time a strong desire to become independent of the (German speaking) Austrian existed - a desire mostly felt by the Czech speaking part of the population.
But he didn't.

Just FWIW, and not sure how or if it really relates to what you are saying, my mother's parents, who both came from the exact same German-speaking-Jewish-Bohemian-Czech millieu you describe Kafka coming from - in fact my Grandfather's uncle was Max Brod himself (Brod, btw, being situated in both 'worlds' very strongly) - considered themselves to be Czech even though they hardly knew the language.

That doesn't seem to make too much sense though, does it? Especially when they didn't really speak Czech.
But it starts to make more sense when you start looking at it from a post-1918 perspective. Which means it has very little to do with the situation in the Austro-Hungarian Empire I described. In fact, it illustrates what I said, namely how later terminology becomes confused with earlier uses.

In 1918, the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed and the CSSR was created. The Czech independence movement, like similar movements in other places, was fiercely nationalistic because that was what mostly set them apart from the (German speaking) Austrian "overlords" and it provided a "justification" to have their own state - remember, in monarchic times, nationality didn't really matter as "argument" for a state to be united since it was the monarchic rulership configurations that mattered) as well as a common bond for the new citizens in their new state.

That meant that Germans now found themselves in the role of second class citizens, and they were often treated like that. Which is the main reason why later, most of these wanted to be part of Germany and welcomed the annexion of the Sudetenland by Hitler, no matter if they agreed with NS ideologies in general or not.

While the new Czechoslovakian state was under way, radical nationalists in Germany decided that it was somehow not possible to be Jewish and German at the same time. You may have heard about that. You may also have heard that these differences in definition were not left at discussions about terminology, but that they became a matter of life and death and world war (among other factors, of course). Parts of the Czech and especially Slovakian population were also rather more enthusiastic in helping the German occupiers round up and deport Jews than they were later ready to admit. Then after the war, all the remaining Germans were driven out of the CSSR, and that ended centuries of German-Czech coexistence in that area.

But it did not make "terminology" any easier. Especially immigrants to other countries (which your grandparents may have been) found that being somehow German, from Bohemia or anywhere else, Jewish or not, was simply not cool anymore, especially when they emigrated to countries which had been at war with Germany (which may have been your grandparents' case) and they often found that their new fellow countrymen did not really make a distinction between Jewish Germans who were clearly victimized, Germans in general who may or may not have supported the dictatorship, and nationalist Germans who clearly were victimizers. All Germans were just bad, period.

So it was not at all uncommon for people of that generation with that background to just reject their background completely and stop explaining that they were German, but had been CSSR citizens at one point and had been treated as second class citizens, but then they were persecuted by their fellow Germans who had decided they weren't really German after all, so they weren't the bad Germans who started the war. And then after the war, they were the bad Germans anyway, so they were driven out.

That's waaaaaay too much explaining to do, and a lot of people just got tired of it. And after all, had they not been told by other Germans they weren't really German? Had they not been told that they were second class citizens before that by their Czech compatriots, and that should rather assimilate with the Czech population? And now they lived in a new country and got put down again, after all, they were Germans, so the war and all that must have been their fault.

A lot of people from this kind of background lived through several major breaks of their ethnic and cultural identity, so much that they didn't really know anymore at the end what they were "supposed" to be.

I have no idea if that, or something similar to that, is what happened to your grandparents, you would have to tell us more about that. But it was a very common reality for many millions of people in those dark times.

Still, that doesn't have that much to do with the pre-1918 reality I described. Well, of course, things didn't change from one day to the next. All these conflicts had been slowly brewing for a long time before that, and elements of that can be seen everywhere. And the basic situation also continued in many respects for a while after 1918 before everything blew up.

Which you can see by the fact that Brod, AFAIK, mostly wrote in German, and he continued to do so after 1918, and even 1939.

Quote from: M forever on July 03, 2007, 01:47:15 AM
That doesn't seem to make too much sense though, does it? Especially when they didn't really speak Czech.
But it starts to make more sense when you start looking at it from a post-1918 perspective. Which means it has very little to do with the situation in the Austro-Hungarian Empire I described. In fact, it illustrates what I said, namely how later terminology becomes confused with earlier uses.

In 1918, the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed and the CSSR was created. The Czech independence movement, like similar movements in other places, was fiercely nationalistic because that was what mostly set them apart from the (German speaking) Austrian "overlords" and it provided a "justification" to have their own state - remember, in monarchic times, nationality didn't really matter as "argument" for a state to be united since it was the monarchic rulership configurations that mattered) as well as a common bond for the new citizens in their new state.

That meant that Germans now found themselves in the role of second class citizens, and they were often treated like that. Which is the main reason why later, most of these wanted to be part of Germany and welcomed the annexion of the Sudetenland by Hitler, no matter if they agreed with NS ideologies in general or not.

While the new Czechoslovakian state was under way, radical nationalists in Germany decided that it was somehow not possible to be Jewish and German at the same time. You may have heard about that. You may also have heard that these differences in definition were not left at discussions about terminology, but that they became a matter of life and death and world war (among other factors, of course). Parts of the Czech and especially Slovakian population were also rather more enthusiastic in helping the German occupiers round up and deport Jews than they were later ready to admit. Then after the war, all the remaining Germans were driven out of the CSSR, and that ended centuries of German-Czech coexistence in that area.

But it did not make "terminology" any easier. Especially immigrants to other countries (which your grandparents may have been) found that being somehow German, from Bohemia or anywhere else, Jewish or not, was simply not cool anymore, especially when they emigrated to countries which had been at war with Germany (which may have been your grandparents' case) and they often found that their new fellow countrymen did not really make a distinction between Jewish Germans who were clearly victimized, Germans in general who may or may not have supported the dictatorship, and nationalist Germans who clearly were victimizers. All Germans were just bad, period.

So it was not at all uncommon for people of that generation with that background to just reject their background completely and stop explaining that they were German, but had been CSSR citizens at one point and had been treated as second class citizens, but then they were persecuted by their fellow Germans who had decided they weren't really German after all, so they weren't the bad Germans who started the war. And then after the war, they were the bad Germans anyway, so they were driven out.

That's waaaaaay too much explaining to do, and a lot of people just got tired of it. And after all, had they not been told by other Germans they weren't really German? Had they not been told that they were second class citizens before that by their Czech compatriots, and that should rather assimilate with the Czech population? And now they lived in a new country and got put down again, after all, they were Germans, so the war and all that must have been their fault.

A lot of people from this kind of background lived through several major breaks of their ethnic and cultural identity, so much that they didn't really know anymore at the end what they were "supposed" to be.

I have no idea if that, or something similar to that, is what happened to your grandparents, you would have to tell us more about that. But it was a very common reality for many millions of people in those dark times.

Still, that doesn't have that much to do with the pre-1918 reality I described. Well, of course, things didn't change from one day to the next. All these conflicts had been slowly brewing for a long time before that, and elements of that can be seen everywhere. And the basic situation also continued in many respects for a while after 1918 before everything blew up.

Which you can see by the fact that Brod, AFAIK, mostly wrote in German, and he continued to do so after 1918, and even 1939.

Thanks, M, for that detailed response. I suppose I was too close to the particular situation of my grandparents to be able to take a longer view, as for instance the one you propose here. I just always accepted that as far as nationality and allegiance went they were 100% Czech, to be more precise, western-Czech (Bohemian). I know that this identification with the Czech nation was deep and predated WWII - I recall, for instance, that one of my Grandmother's earlier memories was of the joy and anticipation that she felt around her at the rise to power of Masaryk . However, certainly there must have been some kind of disjunction - they certainly didn't feel 'ethnically' Czech, and part of their love for the country was that as (non-religious) Jews they felt safer and more protected in an independent Czechoslovakia, I think.

Culturally, of course, they were Bohemians, in the geographical sense of the word, if one extends it somewhat to cover both the western Czech lands and the adjacent areas of Germany and Austria - their musical lives, for instance, were centred around Mozart, Schubert, Dvorak. But essentially they felt rooted in the small area of Czechoslovakia defined by my grandmother's hometown of Karlovy Vary (Karlsbad) and my grandfather's hometown, Prague.

Of course, they had to leave Prague, which they managed to do, just, in 1938. The many members of their families who they had to leave behind were all killed. They settled in Yorkshire and it too became home for them, in a very deep and genuine sense (they learnt English very quickly, FWIW!). They were eternally and fervently grateful to Britain, and more specifically to the people who took them in and helped them through their hard first years here, becoming almost substitute families in their turn.

Quote from: M forever on July 03, 2007, 01:47:15 AMWhich you can see by the fact that Brod, AFAIK, mostly wrote in German, and he continued to do so after 1918, and even 1939.

Very true. But he's an interesting figure because he was very open to Czech-speaking and Eastern Czech culture too - witness the important role he played for Janacek and for Hasek, for instance.

Sure, being deeply rooted in and actively contributing to one culture does not necessarily mean not appreciating another. On the contrary, people who do have a deep understanding of and relationship to their own culture usually have much more appreciation for other cultures than those who don't. There already were a lot of people Brod back then who were able to look over their own garden fence - but unfortunately not enough by far. Simplistic and fanatic nationalism was the flavor of the day. And not just among Germans or Czechs or Slovaks - basically everywhere. I guess it had to take one more world war for the majority of people to figure out that all that simply doesn't make sense.
Although then nationalist fronts were replaced by ideological ones for yet another round of staring each
other down - this time in a relatively cold war, fortunately.

Quote from: lukeottevanger on July 03, 2007, 03:58:43 AM
Thanks, M, for that detailed response. I suppose I was too close to the particular situation of my grandparents to be able to take a longer view, as for instance the one you propose here. I just always accepted that as far as nationality and allegiance went they were 100% Czech, to be more precise, western-Czech (Bohemian). I know that this identification with the Czech nation was deep and predated WWII - I recall, for instance, that one of my Grandmother's earlier memories was of the joy and anticipation that she felt around her at the rise to power of Masaryk . However, certainly there must have been some kind of disjunction - they certainly didn't feel 'ethnically' Czech, and part of their love for the country was that as (non-religious) Jews they felt safer and more protected in an independent Czechoslovakia, I think.

Obviously, I have no idea what your grandmother thought, and we are not discussing individual opinions and fates here, but the relationship of immigrants to host countries and ethnic and cultural diversity within one political country - for which all this is actual a great and highly complex example -, so I don't want to get too fixated on details here, but I have to tell you there *may* have happened some extensive rewriting in her mind - completely understandable after all that people like her had to go through.


Fact is (and it actually an amazingly little known fact) that the *vast* majority of Germans in the Bohemian and Moravian crown territories as they were known during the Austro-Hungarian did not want the areas in which Germans were the majority to become part of Czechoslovakia.

In fact, extensive areas, mostly the province Deutschböhmen (99+% Germans) in which Karlsbad in located, the Sudetenland in central Bohemia and Moravia (95% Germans), extensive territories along the Bavarian border (at that time still part of Oberösterreich, but later taken away and added to Czechoslovakia - 99+% Germans there, too) and some smaller areas declared themselves *not* part of Czechoslovakia and desired to be part of the newly proclaimed Republik Deutschösterreich.

That was ignored in Versailles and these areas were given to Czechoslovakia where, despite the sizeable German population and contrary to given promises, Czech became and remained the only official language.
Equally ignored was the desire of a strong part of the Austrian population to become part of the new German republic. That made sense to a lot of people, if everybody else gets their national state, and now that the Austro-Hungarian Empire is gone, why not unite Germany and Austria? These had never been seen as too entirely separate things anyway.
Austria was not Austria as opposed to Germany, but Austria was seen as one of many German states - not in the sense of belonging to the German Empire - although that had been the first proposition after the revolution of 1848, in fact, many demanded that the new German Empire should be led by Austria - but in the sense of one of many states with a German speaking population, like Bavaria, Saxony, Prussia, etc, not something somehow entirely separate.

So, I think it is unlikely that your grandmother felt a whole lot of joy and anticipation around her when Masaryk came to power. Certainly not from fellow German speaking people, Jewish or not. Jews were not systematically persecuted in Austria or the German Empire, so here was nothing concrete for them to fear at that time. In fact, Jews were more integrated in Prussia than probably anywhere else and could rise to very high and respected positions, and in the Weimar Republic, too. At that time, nobody could have foreseen what happened after 1933.

Masaryk tried to moderate, but it was his clear aim to keep the German majority territories instead of respecting their own wishes, and he did not come through with promises to give them more say in Czechoslovakia, including making German an official language. Plus he made some rather anti-German comments which did not sit too well with them and Czech troops occupied part of those territories. There is no reason at all to think that German speaking Jews in Czechoslovakia had any more love left for their new homeland which was forced on them just as on the non-Jewish Germans.

Later, after 1933 and especially after 1938 (annexion of Austria), that situation obviously changed, and the idea that those territories could and most likely would become part of Germany - which indeed happened in 1939 - must have been a terrible prospect for Jews in Czechoslovakia, and that most likely caused a strong but new found allegiance to the Czechoslovakian state among German Jews in those areas. I guess that very conveniently played towards Nazi desires to alienate German Jews and non-Jews - the vast majority of which wanted to become part of Germany. What a messy situation. And obviously, you know what happened later.

I can completely understand that people who were in the midst of all this and who got out just in time and eventually found a new and safe homeland somewhere else (for instance in England) would feel the deep need to distance themselves from their German connections. All the more since they were then living among people who had fought against Germany in the war and who most likely had no understanding of or time for the complexity of the situation.

Although the idea that an assumed Czech identity and declared allegiance to Czechoslovakia would solve that problem is really just a fantasy, sorry. In fact, during the occupation, many national Czechs were only all too willing to help the German occupiers to get rid of the Jews and confiscate their property. In Slovakia, the SS was actually *paid* to deport the Jews because they didn't want to take them at first. I kid you not.
And the very few Jews from those regions who survived the death camps returned after the war only to find that the Czechoslovakian state was more interested in making them climb over bureaucratic hurdles than to help them get their property back.

But these horrible events are not at all representative for the German-Czech situation in general as it applied to the majority of the population there for a very long time.

BTW, the percentages given above are based on censuses done before and after the war and the numbers reflect not what bureaucrats decided people were "supposed" to be, but as "what" people declared themselves.

Quote from: lukeottevanger on July 03, 2007, 03:58:43 AM
Culturally, of course, they were Bohemians, in the geographical sense of the word, if one extends it somewhat to cover both the western Czech lands and the adjacent areas of Germany and Austria - their musical lives, for instance, were centred around Mozart, Schubert, Dvorak. But essentially they felt rooted in the small area of Czechoslovakia defined by my grandmother's hometown of Karlovy Vary (Karlsbad) and my grandfather's hometown, Prague.

There is actually no need to overextend the definition of Bohemia to cover the adjacent areas of Germany and Austria in order to explain the cultural affinities felt by them. In fact, it just confuses more.
Bohemia was and is what it is, the connecting factor between these areas in a cultural sense is the common language spoken and the culture shared by people in Bohemia, Bavaria, Saxony, Austria, Prussia, and all the other places where German people lived and/or live. These were actually very diverse cultural microclimates under one "umbrella" culture, and that is one of the factors which explains the very broad spectrum of cultural achievements, for instance of music, from those German speaking areas.

In Bohemia, that microclimate was particularly complex because of the close co-existence of two different "ethnic" groups with two very different languages, yet largely a shared culture. Bohemia and Moravia were the areas in which "German" and "Slavic" cultures touched most closely and flowed into each other, a fascinatingly rich and complex cultural relationship which got brutally torn apart by nasty political upheavals. But there are still so many elements which appear in both cultures and now that hopefully all that nastiness is over, it is particularly interesting to rediscover all that.

Although the continuity never completely stopped, because of the close association of Eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia during communist times. One element which I grew up with, for instance, were the wonderful Czech children's and fairy tale movies which we could watch on East German TV (I lived in West Berlin) and which preserved a lot of the ages old local traditions of Bohemia, a place which is fairy tale country like no other, full of deep forests and old castles. It is also that complexity which is mirrored in many aspects of Mahler's music and the literary material he took inspiration from, one of he many reasons I find Mahler so interesting - his musical worlds allow us a look into a rich and complex cultural past which almost got destroyed.
And so does Dvořák's music, I absolutely love his fairy tale tone poems for that exact reason - and BTW, Mahler totally dug them, too.

Thanks again for your detailed reply. I don't have time to reply properly at the moment, but you certainly have many perceptive points to make. And you are right to imply that the changing situations people like my grandparents found themselves in make it difficult to make sweeping generalisations. I have in front of me my grandmother's own memoirs, which she typed out a few years ago, and they have reminded me of the subtleties of the situation - for instance, I was wrong, as you guessed, to remember that she remembered only positive reaction in her family when Masaryk rose to power. OTOH, she doesn't speak in hostile terms either (it was 'a severe blow to the minority of the three million Sudeten Germans' but at the same time 'Masaryk really behaved very generously to their German minority allowing them...

' - I don't

think that is after-the-event gratitude, either). I was also wrong to imply in simplistic terms that she felt only Czech, because in the 20s she felt wholly German, culturally, and as a young woman, that meant German more or less wholly. That changed very much later on, for obvious reasons, but she was conscious of it; I don't think it describing herself as Czech was a way of making her origins easier to explain, I think it cut much deeper than that. Later on, for interests' sake, I might copy out some of her memories for you, as they are extremely honest and probably typical of people of her age and background at that time. [/list]

Definitely, that would be very interesting to read. Such memoirs are often highly interesting because they present the "inside" view as opposed to the "larger context" - which in the case of the events in Europe in the first half of the 20th century is so large, it is more or less impossible to grasp. But those "small" inside views are obviously all the more valuable because they are first hand and about the human factors rather than generalized summaries of political events.
I also wanted to give a few biographical examples from people I knew, but the post was already so long. Maybe later.

They too would be interesting to read, M. :)

I now feel I ought to modify what I said in my my opening post - '...my mother's parents....considered themselves to be Czech even though they hardly knew the language' - in the light of the subtle changes M has highlighted, but I'll let it stand to make the thread clear. However, I would rephrase it now: Before the war, my mother's parents - I'm talking most specifically about my Grandmother here - considered themselves to be Czech by nationality but German by culture. After the war, I imagine their views couldn't be summed up so simply: they were British by adoption, and loved the country, they looked at Czechosolvakia as 'home'; their cultural roots were still German, but I don't think they were able to see these things in simple national terms any more, understandably. However, it would be wrong to underestimate the extent to which Czech and Czechoslovakia (as it always was to them) meant to them. At my Grandmother's funeral in March the first music played, at her request, was the Largo of Dvorak #9, because it had been used as a symbol of Czech resistance; the last music played (by me) was the Czech national anthem, simply because, though as far from any kind of nationalist as you could possibly imagine, she loved the melody, and it was her home, in the end. My grandfather, meanwhile, who spoke better Czech and as a Prague native was more integrated into 'Czech-Czech' society, continued to think in terms of the language right to the end of his life. Shortly before he died - and I don't know what prompted him - he told me that he'd always like names with the 'Mil-' prefix (connoting love). When our daughter was born a couple of years later we called her Mila.

Anyway, a typically honest and humble relevant excerpt from her memoires, M, as you said you'd like to see it:

QuoteOur family soon became loyal citizens of the new state although neither my father nor my mother or grandmother ever learnt to speak Czech. We children were encouraged to learn it at secondary school as a voluntary subject, leter it became compulsory. My mother, far-seeing and open to progress as ever, went so far as to change our French governesses to Czech 'slecnas' for us, but I am afraid I was much less keen to learn Czech from them than I had been to learn French. Unlike many of my school friends, I had no dislike of or resentment against the Czech. I just did not feel that they had as much to offer as the German and French cultures. This was not really surprising as the Czechs had been oppressed for such a long time during which only music seemed to flourish in spite of the oppression. I was, at that time, enchanted by the achievements of German literature, art and music, and happy to belong to this gifted nation. I realised that being Jewish made me slightly different from 'true' Germans but that did not diminish my love and admiration for everything German. After the terrible events that happened later, I find it difficult, and rather painful, to describe to you how integrated and happy I felt growing up side by side with people many of whom behaved so badly later on. I suppose the signs and indications were there all along for those willing to see (and some, like the Zionists, did see) but I was not one of those, and in spite of everything I can't say even now that I honestly regret having spent the first 20 years or so feeling the way I did.

There is a lot more, obviously, about the particularities of life in the Sudetenland at this time, how it affected her parents, their business and so on, which you might find interesting. But the above is the most relevant to our discussion.

Spanglish is the language these days. 

Quote from: Danny on July 03, 2007, 11:34:48 AM
Spanglish is the language these days. 

i wish i could pull out some of the Spanglish conversations i've heard from the back of my memory.....

Quote from: greg on July 03, 2007, 11:45:09 AM
i wish i could pull out some of the Spanglish conversations i've heard from the back of my memory.....

Ahora now estoy teniendo one.

Quote from: Danny on July 03, 2007, 12:04:28 PM
Ahora now estoy teniendo one.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sb7eLgaddI4

Quote from: Kullervo on July 03, 2007, 12:08:04 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sb7eLgaddI4

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that show's scary

You can absolutely keep your cultural heritage while still adapting to a new culture, and I think it's really important that people celebrate where they come from. A diverse population makes for a more well-rounded society.

We have a huge problem here in Texas with Mexican immigrants never learning English, I mean isn't it a bit absurd to walk into a fast food place and barely be able to order because the employees can hardly speak English? And when you don't learn the language in a new country, it keeps you isolated from the rest of the society.

I lived in The Netherlands with my significant other who was Dutch and looked into permanent residency, and to complete the requirements for that you have to take a year of language and culture classes (called inburgeringcursus and then to pass an exam (that is not easy), or you can't stay. That's all there is to it. I actually think that is an idea for the US. THe residency permit also went sky high (just before I arrived!), I think it cost, no lie around 850 USD. This is also presumably to keep out people who can't pay. Not a bad idea either, though it sucks if you have to pay it. But it assures people end up in your country who really want to be there and are willing to make an effort.

I hasn't lived abroad before and personally felt extremely isolated because I didn't know the language (even though they also speak English), especially at family gatherings. They were very helpful and I started to pick it up quickly. I have to practice a foreign language a ton though to be able to speak it. (I can read Dutch and Spanish still, can understand some spoken, but it is so hard to speak it myself, as I have no one to practice with.) But I wanted to learn the language as quickly as possible. It can be tough, but is absolutely key for feeling part of a new society and gives you so much more enjoyment out of being there.

Quote from: Greta on July 06, 2007, 11:34:45 AM
We have a huge problem here in Texas with Mexican immigrants never learning English, I mean isn't it a bit absurd to walk into a fast food place and barely be able to order because the employees can hardly speak English?

we have people like that in Florida, too, though probably not quite like Texas.

Quote from: Greta on July 06, 2007, 11:34:45 AM
I lived in The Netherlands with my significant other who was Dutch and looked into permanent residency, and to complete the requirements for that you have to take a year of language and culture classes (called inburgeringcursus and then to pass an exam (that is not easy), or you can't stay. That's all there is to it. I actually think that is an idea for the US. THe residency permit also went sky high (just before I arrived!), I think it cost, no lie around 850 USD. This is also presumably to keep out people who can't pay. Not a bad idea either, though it sucks if you have to pay it. But it assures people end up in your country who really want to be there and are willing to make an effort.

That's how it should be with the US, but the US has to be so politically correct that's it's retarded. Just let anyone in, yay, let a bunch of people who can't speak the national language into our country.
But.... it shouldn't be that expensive to stay here, either, or no one will be able to move in. So the test would be good, the cost bad. A balance would be nice.

Quote from: Greta on July 06, 2007, 11:34:45 AM
(I can read Dutch and Spanish still, can understand some spoken, but it is so hard to speak it myself, as I have no one to practice with.)

i feel you there.....

Silly me,  ::)I took the subject literally. I was ready to talk about Rome's palazzos.

Quote from: Isolde on July 06, 2007, 11:34:45 AM
I actually think that is an idea for the US.

How naive it is. Everyone here (not only on the board but in the US :P) comprehends that all the Latin Americans "have to," "must to," "ought to" learn and speak at least simple English.

Come on! It is a very cheap kind of labor force that is not provided with basic benefits, paid the least, and does all the dirty work here, which no one American would consider -- if only not bankrupted and poor. First there were programs for inviting Mexicans for collecting the harvests, which was a seasonal work and required transportation of the workers and a lot of paper work. Very soon smart politicians and businessmen understood that without papers and transportation (just bringing the workers for permanent living) they can make more and more money on this cheap labor force, so...I don't understand what the purpose of talking about what Latin American immigrants must do and what not is...it is just the way it works for the politicians and the rich, and ordinary people just live with it.

When I just came I decided even to learn Spanish, but very soon grew angry with all the Hispanics not speaking English and gave up the idea. Better to learn German or Italian. :D (and of course English, though I will never be like a native speaker, just too late). Now I even do not care about the illegals -- it is their business, they must take care of themselves. To see the difference, I suggest to read the article, 15 Years on the Bottom Rung, which is arguable (mostly in the respect of time), but is still a nice illustration to what a person with ambitions and willingness might achieve.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DEFD71339F935A15756C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=4

Quote from: Corey on July 02, 2007, 10:56:09 AM
Blech, no thanks.

Hmm, I don't understand.
Are immigrants helped in any way? Can they go to language courses? Do they have to pay for tuition? Does the government intervene?

Imagine that you are an illiterate Algerian ( Moroccan, Turkish,Polish,Lithuanian,Congolese...raped,abused,widowed) woman of ca 50 years of age...and you have to start a new life.!! Here in Belgium the best work is done by volunteers who take and need lots of time to teach. Especially Moroccan and Turkish women are often afraid of telling their husbands that they are studying. Learning a language is paramount in order to survive.


I learned three ( four) languages at school : Dutch (Flemish), my mothertongue, French ( starting at age 6) ,English (from age 12)  and basic German ( which I speak quite well, I feel uncomfortable in writing it).

Excellent topic and discussion.
Growing up as an immigrant in the US I have had a mainly positive view of the impact of immigrants in US society. I think immigrants should be allowed to keep a cultural heritage to a certain degree, but still adapt to their new country's culture.

My views on cultural adaptation and immigration have toughened a bit since I moved back to Europe. Particularly during the 1 and a half that I lived in London, I was astounded at the lack of integration of a great part of the British Muslim population.
This lack of adaptation is not just on a superficial level. Many seem to be still attached to ways of thinking from their home culture that are deeply incompatible with basic principles of Western liberal democracy. And a great part of this population was actually already born in the UK.
Take a look at these articles for example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571970/Muslim-apostates-threatened-over-Christianity.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

This could be blamed either on multiculturalism model of the UK, which actually seems to result mainly in cultural apartheid, or on the fact that the UK tends to draw Muslim migrants from more extremist countries, like Pakistan -- or perhaps it is a result of both.

The cultural heritage immigrants should get to preserve should not conflict with basic principles of the society they are integrating into -- so being more extroverted, listening to salsa music, celebrating Cinco de Maio, or eating burritos is fine, but when the heritage includes honor killings for adulterous women, or wanting to bring over a legal code that includes the death penalty for homosexuals -- then there is deep trouble.

Who just necro'd this thread?   :D

Wow, I completely forgot about this. ;D

I must admit that when I started this thread it was more out of frustration than anything else. At the time, I was living in an area with a huge amount of immigrants and often struggled to communicate with them to provide them the service they expect. I don't know if the government offers education for immigrants wanting to enter this country.

    I think anyone who moves to a new country should make their best effort to learn the language. I don't think it should be legally required that they do so. All legal business should be conducted in English, though. And there should be a basic citizenship test on American history and political institutions. I believe that's how it works now.

Quote from: drogulus on August 26, 2008, 01:14:10 PM
And there should be a basic citizenship test on American history and political institutions. I believe that's how it works now.

That is how it works in the UK now too. To become a British citizen you need to take some sort of British test first. Which following our 8 minute Olympic segment I suppose means knowing about all sorts of inconsequential stars and visual attractions.