Migrants easily cut through Trump's wall with a $100 saw

[Endus]

I don't think I'm ever going to quite be able to grasp how folks on your side of this issue think that the lesson modern Americans should take from the Native American experience with the European influx into the Americas is that no one should have any concerns about newcomers with different cultures.

Even thinking that comparison is apt is a problem.

The issue with European colonization wasn't European presence. It was the bringing of new diseases (not really a modern issue at all, given that international travel is commonplace), dishonest approaches to treaty agreements (there are no "treaties" with immigrants), and the deliberate genocide against indigenous peoples once they started to resist encroachment (no such "encroachment" is even occurring to begin with).

[Spectral]

Even thinking that comparison is apt is a problem.

The issue with European colonization wasn't European presence. It was the bringing of new diseases (not really a modern issue at all, given that international travel is commonplace), dishonest approaches to treaty agreements (there are no "treaties" with immigrants), and the deliberate genocide against indigenous peoples once they started to resist encroachment (no such "encroachment" is even occurring to begin with).

I don't think the comparison is apt. I do think rolling my eyes at smug idiots that haven't really thought through their comparison is an appropriate response. If there's a lesson to be drawn, it's not what they're pointing at.

[Yadryonych]

In fact the problem is pretty much the opposite - the US is far behind the rest of the world in learning a language other than English. Something like 75-95% of the population is English-only.

I just wonder why exactly is this a problem and why it is not desired to further improve the situation towards the 100%

[Endus]

I just wonder why exactly is this a problem and why it is not desired to further improve the situation towards the 100%

Because monolingualism isn't a strength, in any way whatsoever.

[Spectral]

Because monolingualism isn't a strength, in any way whatsoever.

Not in any way? Surely we can think of at least one or two things that are helpful about having a universally shared language in a nation.

[Endus]

Not in any way? Surely we can think of at least one or two things that are helpful about having a universally shared language in a nation.

A common language isn't monolingualism, in the first place, so you're shifting goalposts.

Yes, a lingua franca that is shared by all is useful.

No, only speaking that lingua franca is not a positive.

[Spectral]

A common language isn't monolingualism, in the first place, so you're shifting goalposts.

OK, can we agree that a common language is helpful?

[Endus]

OK, can we agree that a common language is helpful?

Yes, as I edited in above.

A common language is useful. Though the value is often oversold.

I was responding to an argument that suggested only speaking a single language was a positive.

[Yadryonych]

Because monolingualism isn't a strength, in any way whatsoever.

This is absolutely true unless your native language is a lungua franca everyone else seeks knowledge of, then you're just fine the way you are.

[Endus]

This is absolutely true unless your native language is a lungua franca everyone else seeks knowledge of, then you're just fine the way you are.

Even if your birth language is a common lingua franca, only ever learning that language and feeling that's a positive is, fundamentally, willful ignorance.

Learning multiple languages has a whole range of positive benefits, including a better understanding of linguistic principles in general.

I speak English as my primary language. I also have a solid grasp of French, and a working grasp of Latin. I have some basic grasp of German and Scottish Gaelic, though I wouldn't begin to try and hold a conversation in either. Every single one of those languages has expanded my understanding of things in English, over and above just being able to understand things in those separate languages. This would apply to most other languages, too; I'm just delineating my personal knowledge, not claiming these languages are "the right ones".

[Yadryonych]

Learning multiple languages has a whole range of positive benefits, including a better understanding of linguistic principles in general.

This is hard to argue with, just like with the fact that learning quantum mechanics gives better understanding of universe and learning mineralogy grants better understanding of earth's crust structure and principles of lithosphere development.

However, we are not talking about personal enrichments and interests, but about minimal requirements and compulsory education. Everyone is free to learn as many languages as he wants, but the one common language is a must for everyone

[Kellhound]

Because monolingualism isn't a strength, in any way whatsoever.

It is actually. Language is a significant glue that holds a society together. The fewer the linguistic splits, the stronger the society is.

[Kaleredar]

It is actually. Language is a significant glue that holds a society together. The fewer the linguistic splits, the stronger the society is.

Seeing as the United States is probably the most diversely-languaged country in the world (for instance, there are about as many people that speak Spanish in the United States as there are people in Spain, period,) while the EU has dozens of languages and many residents of the EU are fluent in multiple languages, often the language of their own country and english, I think... well, you're full of crap on that point.

What's your glorious poster child "one language, one culture, one identity, city on a hill" country that speaks one language and does not tolerate any others? Because if I'm thinking of "single-languaged" cultures, my mind goes to like... El Salvador... North Korea... Somalia... and other insular or otherwise poor countries.

[Kellhound]

Seeing as the United States is probably the most diversely-languaged country in the world (for instance, there are about as many people that speak Spanish in the United States as there are people in Spain, period,) while the EU has dozens of languages and many residents of the EU are fluent in multiple languages, often the language of their own country and english, I think... well, you're full of crap on that point.

What's your glorious poster child "one language, one culture, one identity, city on a hill" country that speaks one language and does not tolerate any others? Because if I'm thinking of "single-languaged" cultures, my mind goes to like... El Salvador... North Korea... Somalia... and other insular or otherwise poor countries.

In all of those places, diverse languages serve to separate, not integrate. That is the nature of language.

[Kaleredar]

In all of those places, diverse languages serve to separate, not integrate. That is the nature of language.

What’s your counter-example?

The EU, Northern European countries and the US (you can put Canada in there too, seeing as French and English are both spoken there) are seen as the pinnacles of western civilization.

So once again I put to you... which single-languaged country has this glorious, singular united culture with which it leads the world while maintaining a strict one-language only policy?

[Kellhound]

What’s your counter-example?

The EU, Northern European countries and the US (you can put Canada in there too, seeing as French and English are both spoken there) are seen as the pinnacles of western civilization.

So once again I put to you... which single-languaged country has this glorious, singular united culture with which it leads the world while maintaining a strict one-language only policy?

My argument is that having multiple languages in a country does not have benefits that exceed the disadvantages. I am not saying country A is stronger than country B because A speaks only one language and B speaks many, I am saying B is not as strong as it could be because of the inherent cloistering that happens when there is a diversity of language.

[Kaleredar]

My argument is that having multiple languages in a country does not have benefits that exceed the disadvantages. I am not saying country A is stronger than country B because A speaks only one language and B speaks many, I am saying B is not as strong as it could be because of the inherent cloistering that happens when there is a diversity of language.

Again, based on... what?

The strongest, most prosperous countries in the world exist in this day and age. Those countries universally hold numerous groups of different cultures and languages.

You're arguing about hypotheticals with zero actual examples to back it up. Surely, if having an "homogeneous culture wherein a single language was harshly enforced" was "beneficial" to a country, then a country like that would be able to stand among all of the other nations with "polyglot groups with diverse cultural populations" that are, in your argument, "dragging them down," right?

And yet, no such country exists.

[Kellhound]

Again, based on... what?

The strongest, most prosperous countries in the world exist in this day and age. Those countries universally hold numerous groups of different cultures and languages.

You're arguing about hypotheticals with zero actual examples to back it up. Surely, if having an "homogeneous culture wherein a single language was harshly enforced" was "beneficial" to a country, then a country like that would be able to stand among all of the other nations with "polyglot groups with diverse cultural populations" that are, in your argument, "dragging them down," right?

And yet, no such country exists.

Name an advantage that exceeds the disadvantages of ineffective communication between groups and the cloistering of said groups of multiple languages.

[Kaleredar]

Name an advantage that exceeds the disadvantages of ineffective communication between groups and the cloistering of said groups of multiple languages.

Because they don't remain cloistered. And then you've gained the tremendous cultural and human capital of an entire group of people, with the capacity to accommodate even more.



Still waiting on your example, by the way.

[Endus]

Name an advantage that exceeds the disadvantages of ineffective communication between groups and the cloistering of said groups of multiple languages.

That isn't even a disadvantage that exists.

The reality is that people just become multilingual, where those groups interact.

In Canada, Quebec is largely French (Montreal aside), most of the rest of the country is English. We have very few issues due to language, at all.

There is no such "cloistering", unless there is some separate antagonism between these cultural groups which would drive a divide between them, which would not otherwise exist. And frankly, to stick to my Canada example, we have such an antagonistic divide, dating back to Canada's origins, and we've mostly gotten over it ("mostly" because Quebec separatist sentiment still exists, but that's akin to the Scottish independence movement in terms of "antagonism"; it's not a heated issue).