Should English be the official language of the United States? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.
#14799356
This is how they works: What do you think public records would be like if folks were free to make them in any of the thousands of languages? The vast majority of countries have an official language. If a command of the English language is required for naturalization in the U.S., why should we be printing ballots in Spanish. If we print them in Spanish, why not Ebonics or Swahili?
#14799391
There are public records in Spanish already.

As near as I can tell, the US has not collapsed.


Yup. Where I live Spanish signs, forms, etc are completely normal. We have not collapsed yet.

There is a problem with Bi-lingual education though. Unless English mastery is the goal we leave students with a good education they find difficult to use. The cold reality is that the market for better jobs is an English one. It behooves us to prepare our children for them.

English is the language of science, engineering, and business. There is no denying that. There is no language on Earth that prepares one for enhanced income opportunities more than English.
#14799449
Potemkin wrote:...he so-called "melting pot" no longer exists, and was always something of a myth anyway. Que sera sera, Papi! 8)


The Melting Pot worked with White Christians, they melted into White Americans.

German Americans even accepted the English language (which is similar to North German dialects), though they were the biggest ethnic group in the USA.

In order to create a unified White America, Germans an other Europeans abandoned their own identity.

But Jews, Blacks, Latinos, Chinese, etc, did not melt in this Melting Pot, they were reluctant to abandon their own identity, an today there are big issues with the "double loyalty" of hyphenated Americans, like Jewish-Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, and so on.

Jonathan Pollard is a good example...

On the other hand, there are no issues with the loyalty of Americans of European descent.

For example, Americans with German roots (about 50 Millions in the USA) were loyal to the USA in WWI and in WWII, fighting against the country their ancestors came from.

Can you imagine Jews fighting against Israel, Mexicans fighting in a war against Mexico, or Muslims fighting against Islam?

:roll:
#14799457
In order to create a unified White America, Germans an other Europeans abandoned their own identity.

But Jews, Blacks, Latinos, Chinese, etc, did not melt in this Melting Pot, they were reluctant to abandon their own identity, an today there are big issues with the "double loyalty" of hyphenated Americans, like Jewish-Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, and so on.

There is a reason for this difference, ArtAllm, and that reason can be summed up in one word: racism. The Germans and other (northern) Europeans all had one thing in common: their faces were white. Even the Irish were not initially regarded as being 'white' enough, but were eventually permitted to join the club of the WASP elite. Ethnic groups such as the Jews, Blacks, Latinos, Chinese, etc did not simply refuse to join that 'melting pot' out of wilful perversity, or a stubborn refusal to abandon their own cultural identities - they wanted to join the melting pot, but were excluded from it by the 'white' Americans for racial reasons. Incidentally, the phrase "melting point" was actually coined by a Jewish playwright in the first decade of the 20th century. To most Jews at that time, it was a desired but unattainable ideal rather than a concept which they stubbornly rejected, as you would have it. You are rewriting history to fit your own racist beliefs.
#14799634
Potemkin wrote:There is a reason for this difference, ArtAllm, and that reason can be summed up in one word: racism. The Germans and other (northern) Europeans all had one thing in common: their faces were white. Even the Irish were not initially regarded as being 'white' enough, but were eventually permitted to join the club of the WASP elite.


It sounds like the so-called "racism" is something natural, speak normal.
And if something is normal, then it can be considered healthy.

Potemkin wrote: Ethnic groups such as the Jews, Blacks, Latinos, Chinese, etc did not simply refuse to join that 'melting pot' out of wilful perversity, or a stubborn refusal to abandon their own cultural identities - they wanted to join the melting pot, but were excluded from it by the 'white' Americans for racial reasons.


I am not sure that Jews are an ethnic group, and that they really wanted to abandon their status of "chosen people" and become Goyim.

;)

Those of them who really wanted to melt in the USA, became White Americans.

On the other hand, according to your definition of "racism", most Jews are "racists" themselves, because you cannot join their group, it is a club of chosen, based on a believed special ancestry.

The same with the Chinese, if you go to China, you will be a foreigner, you will never be accepted as an equal, because of your race.

The same with Africa, look what happens in South Africa! Are they colour blind? No, of course not!

As we see, you cannot just force people into an invented identity, the identity has to be natural and visible, and racial and religious differences are natural things an identity is based upon.

Neither Jews, nor Chinese, nor Black Africans are called "racists", tough they behave similar to white people. It seems that the word "racism" in the Orwellian language is just used as a buzz word against white Christians.

Potemkin wrote: Incidentally, the phrase "melting point" was actually coined by a Jewish playwright in the first decade of the 20th century.


You are talking about the Zionist Israel Zangwill, he had written his "melting pot" in 1909.
And look what this guy advocated in 1916 for Jews:

According to Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Zangwill told him in 1916 that, "If you wish to give a country to a people without a country, it is utter foolishness to allow it to be the country of two peoples. This can only cause trouble. The Jews will suffer and so will their neighbours. One of the two: a different place must be found either for the Jews or for their neighbours".[26]
...
In 1921 Zangwill wrote "If Lord Shaftesbury was literally inexact in describing Palestine as a country without a people, he was essentially correct, for there is no Arab people living in intimate fusion with the country, utilizing its resources and stamping it with a characteristic impress: there is at best an Arab encampment...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Zangwill


As we see, this hypocrite advocated race mixing in the USA (I think because of his atavistic hate against White Christians), and at the same time advocated ethnic cleansing in Palestine, he did not like the idea about the Jewish State becoming a Melting Pot, he did not want any race mixing with Arabs, who are maybe more Semitic and more related to the ancient Hebrews, than the mixed descendants of Slavs and Khazars who claim that they have a special ancestry that can be traced back to Palestine.

Potemkin wrote:To most Jews at that time, it was a desired but unattainable ideal rather than a concept which they stubbornly rejected, as you would have it. You are rewriting history to fit your own racist beliefs.


That is total BS!

You base your worldview not on historical facts, but on propaganda literature or Hollywood pictures.

Jews could easily become part of European Christian societies even back in Europe!

That was the dream of Christians!

Jews were a privileged group in Christian societies, and this had religious reasons.

Pagans were persecuted and killed, if they refused to convert to Christianity.

Jews were "the people of the book", according to the Christian doctrine, Jews would eventually accept Jesus Christ.


In some countries Jews were forced to convert to Christianity, speak they were forced to melt, like it was the case in Andalusia.

And Jews still whine about it, though it was just about melting.

They say that Luther was a "Jew hater", but he just advocated a forced conversion of Jews to Christianity, he wanted that Jews melted in Christian Europe, and Jews refused to melt.

The same was the case in the USA, those Jews that wanted to melt in this melting pot, could easily do this. Christianity is not based on the blood line (speak race), like it is the case with Judaism.

In fact, the Jewish holiday Hanukkah is dedicated to a massacre, committed by Jewish Zealots against Jews, who wanted to melt in the Greek society.

Hanukkah today: The battle against assimilation

"Christianity, since its establishment, seeks to convert Jews. They see this as very important, as an important ideal, and invest a lot of resources and money in it."

"The methods were varied throughout history," he explained, noting that tactics have changed from the forced conversions of the Middle Ages to "highly sophisticated" movements such as so-called "Messianic Judaism" and Jews for Jesus.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204568



However, in 175 BC, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus III, invaded Judea, at the request of the sons of Tobias.[22] The Tobiads, who led the Hellenizing Jewish faction in Jerusalem, were expelled to Syria around 170 BC when the high priest Onias and his pro-Egyptian faction wrested control from them. The exiled Tobiads lobbied Antiochus IV Epiphanes to recapture Jerusalem.
...

Some modern scholars argue that the king was intervening in an internal civil war between the Maccabean Jews and the Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem.[27][28][29]
[30]
...
In particular, Jason's Hellenistic reforms would prove to be a decisive factor leading to eventual conflict within the ranks of Judaism.[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah#Story

The Tobiads were a Jewish faction in Ammon at the beginning of the Maccabean period. They were phil-Hellene, in other words supporters of the Hellenistic tendencies in Judaism in the early years of the 2nd century BCE.
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobiads



As we see, the Hellenistic world was an open world, everybody could melt and become a member of this world, and many Jews did it.

But the Jewish Zealots rebelled against this "melting" and killed those Jews that melted into the Greek society.

And this massacre against hellenized Jews is an important Jewish holiday.

And you have the nerve to say that Jews wanted to melt into the American Melting pot, but were not permitted?

:D

Some Jews say that melting into the host societies is as bad, as Holocaust!

At a conference in Budapest, one of Israel’s top rabbis has said that high assimilation rates among European Jews were “worse than the Holocaust”.
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/top ... holocaust/


As we see, only non-Jews have to lose their identities and do race mixing in a Melting Pot. If they resist, then they are called "racists".

But Jews themselves are eager to preserve their supposedly special blood line and their culture, this is not racism, this is just their "right to exist".
#14810213
Red_Army wrote:There is no reason to make English the official language. It is hilarious that British people call hoods bonnets though. A lamer and more effeminate people could not be imagined :lol:


English('American' English)is the de facto recognised language of N. America due to colonial influence & English 'settlers'.

The USA is a federal republic of 50 individual self-governing states, where populations, with exceptions, are of differing languages & ethnic origins.

In the U.K(a subjective term)as the countries of the (U.K),England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland are sub-autonomous in the political sense collectively.

Were one to ask the citizens of England what is there country called, then England & NOT GB(another subjective term)would be the response.
The same vein of response applies to the other countries therein.

It may surprise foreigners to know that many people oppose a monarchy, yet, as Churchill once said of 'democracy', it's the worst form of governance there is, except for the other forms.
We retain a monarchy, NOT because we like it, but, because, the alternatives are worse & our kings or queens are the SERVANTS of the people.
We can 'top' them anytime we wish & arguably an act of treason was undertaken by the queen on ceding powers to the EU in 1973.
The essential difference between the USA-UK is that the American president is judge, jury & executioner.

That is not healthy in a democracy, where the president can wage war without explicit democratic consent of the people, imprison people without trial(Quantanamo Bay)in the UK our rights are protected under Magna Carta (Grand Charter)the 'right' to a fair trial by our 'peers', which predates the very first parliament & for which there was a settlement between King John & the people.
Again anyone has a 'right' of appeal in the last resort to our king or queen, in the form of a 'royal pardon', if a demeanour has been done.
Our military are NOT to wage war without our kingdom being under imminent threat of attack, they are strictly 'defensive', to 'defend' the realm. which is why BLAIR should have been arraigned.

Our courts of justice are H.M courts(NOT political in any sense)

In the UK, the head of state(king-queen)CANNOT wage war, even though our military are designated H.M Forces, neither can they capitulate to any foreign power that attacks us, it is constitutionally impossible as they are purely 'custodians' of the 'royal prerogative' for future kings or queens in perpetuity.

Only in total defeat in war is power transferred to the victor, not by any proclamation.

We DO call 'hoods' hoods, 'bonnets' are what females wear.

As for, " A lamer and more effeminate people could not be imagined".

Well, it is a trait held universally of late, I personally do not agree with it, perhaps your 'imagination' is limited, or maybe you see faults in others but not in your own country.

As for being 'lame', well, I do agree to a degree as the English are somewhat 'sheepish' & accept a lot of 'punishment' until 'the worm turns' then watch out.
#14810231
The USA is a federal republic of 50 individual self-governing states, where populations, with exceptions, are of differing languages & ethnic origins.


I don't think this is true. There are pockets (little more than neighborhoods really) where a number of people speak a foreign language but the overwhelming majority of Americans speak English.

Most people think that we speak English better than the Brits do because we invented movies and television and that is mostly what people expect to hear. British upper class English is very popular with Americans because we think that everyone who speaks it is smart. Compared to many Americans and all republicans (except me and this other guy I met at the first class lounge at Heathrow) they are.

We like the queen. She has about a 85% approval rating in the US. We would like her to take over if she only had time. Her son is busy doing.......well I am sure he is very busy and her two grandsons are super heroes we have made action figures from so we will have to just plod along and wait for our own man on a white horse.

We envy you Brits your language and your queen. Now don't think for a moment that we do not have our own queens. We have lots of queens but they are not the same as your queen. Our queens dress far more ostentatiously than yours do even on special occasions.

Well enough about queens dammit.
#14810378
[quote="Drlee"]I don't think this is true. There are pockets (little more than neighborhoods really) where a number of people speak a foreign language but the overwhelming majority of Americans speak English.

On reflection I concur with you on that one,my mistake.

"Most people think that we speak English better than the Brits do because we invented movies and television and that is mostly what people expect to hear. British upper class English is very popular with Americans because we think that everyone who speaks it is smart. Compared to many Americans and all republicans (except me and this other guy I met at the first class lounge at Heathrow) they are".

If you were born with s 'silver spoon' in your mouth, then, perhaps you too would speak 'posh'.

On the other hand, the 'working class' think those people are the 'scum-of-the-earth', equal in in rank to politicians as 'sewer rats', who would happily stab their own mothers in the back.

Whatever it is, correct me if I am wrong, I always believed that Americans believed in a 'meritocracy', not an 'arse-licking' pecking order?

"We envy you Brits your language and your queen. Now don't think for a moment that we do not have our own queens. We have lots of queens but they are not the same as your queen. Our queens dress far more ostentatiously than yours do even on special occasions".

LOL, I do know what you mean, the BBC is full to the brim with them. :lol: :lol:
"
Well enough about queens dammit".

We do share with America our language(excepting 'Americanism's' of course),it's a widely accepted language with input from near & afar.

There's French, German, Latin, Indian, it's a 'two-way' thing though, we influence others, just as they do us.
We have a long history of trade, colonisation worldwide, which is an effect of British 'global capitalism', whose effects are now in reverse with current global trading.

We have mass inward migration into our small country, with long-term effects, whereas in the past, we travelled the globe in search of trade.

The question to ask is why this is happening, surely more investment in less prosperous countries would be better for all?
#14810406
geneviverip wrote:I am writing a research paper on whether or not English should be the official language of the United States. I have provided a link to the survey I created to record answers for my research paper. Your name will remain anonymous. Thanks! https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ND82Q5Q


Your doing a paper on what the world thinks the official language of America should be? Who cares what anybody else thinks !
#14810430
ArtAllm wrote:The Melting Pot worked with White Christians, they melted into White Americans.

German Americans even accepted the English language (which is similar to North German dialects), though they were the biggest ethnic group in the USA.

In order to create a unified White America, Germans an other Europeans abandoned their own identity.

Not all German-Americans completely adopted English to the exclusion of our native German dialects . The Amish most notably never did < http://amishamerica.com/language/ , https://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies/social-organization/language/ > , and it wasn't until World War I that numerous other communities gave up the German language < http://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/1914-1920/2-homefront/4-hysteria/ , http://www.mckendree.edu/academics/scholars/issue7/hollingsead.htm , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language_in_the_United_States > .

No, Rancid, I think a lot of the people who voted[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]

@annatar1914 do not despair. Again, el amor pu[…]

I think we really have to ask ourselves what t[…]