BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


A national language?

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
All Acting Regiment
08:55 / 06.06.06
Mr Vento, USA, won't serve his customers unless they talk English. This has made me wonder:

What advantages and disadvantages are there to having an official national language or languages?

Should a nation, then, have one?

Should it (they) be enforced, and how?
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:50 / 06.06.06
Well, one shouldn't forget the bureaurocratic angle. Official documents need to produce in some variety of languages, and it is rather helpful if state officials, say, are understood to speak a particular language. Now, in practice, documents can be produced in a variety of languages and officials may speak a number of languages. But the idea of a single, or a number of core langauges used within a state or region is quite reasonable. This is rather different from refusing to interact with people who speak a different language, however.

These questions are actually poltically very relevant in Catalunya, which has two official languages, Spanish (Castellano) and Catalan (Català). The status of these and the requirements for state workers are the focus of a good deal of attention from those interested in Catalan independence.
 
 
PyD
13:03 / 08.06.06
Well Ireland has 2 official languages Gaeilge and English.

It leads to some interesting anomalies whereby people have had offical documents like tickets issued by the Gardai deemed inadmissable or unlawful becasue they were not bilingual.

There is also a requirement that to qualify as an employee of the state one must pass an oral competency in Gaeilge test. This applies even to teachers.
I find it kind of risable that friends of mine are inelligible to receive the status, salary, an benefits of other teachers while teaching their own native languages.

The state is actively discouraging native speakers of Eurpean and Asian languages from teaching those subjects by discriminating against them.

Gaeilge was established in our constitution as an official language to protect it due to the attempts by our former colonial overlords to wipe it out. It was a protective measue of culture and heritage, but the way it is kind of forced onto people actually tends to work against its fostering as a popular choice since. And every single piece of literature in Gaeilge given to secondary students is just abominable crap.

Seeing as its unlikely English will ever die out (well more than it already has though barbarism) especially in America it doesn't need the protection of official status, all that status would serve to do it encourage and legally enshrine forms of discrimination based on that requirement.
 
 
Triumvir
04:58 / 09.06.06
Even in a place like the United States, where our whole national character is about assimilating new people into the union, I think that having the unifying factor of a national 'official' language is important. In order to have a society that lives harmoniously, even with our many differences, some homogeny is needed, and language is probably one of the things we need to homogenize.
 
 
*
06:53 / 09.06.06
{offtopica}And every single piece of literature in Gaeilge given to secondary students is just abominable crap.
That's because they won't teach Cathal Ó Searcaigh in schools.{/offtopica}

where our whole national character is about assimilating new people into the union
Where is that written? I think our national character has more to do with pluralism than assimilation, and nationalizing the English language is all about assimilation and against pluralism.

Enshrining English as the USA's national language will not in any way contribute to national harmony. There's no evidence to suggest that will happen, and a certain amount to suggest the opposite will occur. It would be a largely symbolic gesture which will serve the purpose of demonstrating that English speakers hold the most power and intend to keep it that way.
 
 
PyD
07:47 / 09.06.06
{offtopica}That's because they won't teach Cathal Ó Searcaigh in schools

That's beacuse article 57 of the Irish constiution reads:
"And we shall hate the gays so very very much, the archbishop said so and I'm scared of him. Signed Dev."

His poetry is alright I suppose.
{/offtopica}
 
 
Red Concrete
08:41 / 09.06.06
That's because they won't teach Cathal Ó Searcaigh in schools

Actually he is in the 2006 Leaving Cert syllabus (Níl Aon Ní).
(My Irish is too bad to know exactly what he's doing there, though...)

On topic, I think the way the French treat French is a bit over the top. Languages have to evolve. And always will, and still are, including French... I think trying to include into the "official" language the influences of immigrants and lower social classes' slang, etc, might do subtle wonders for problems of social alienation.

What do you think - are social problems in any way ascribable to language, or does language simply follow society?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
09:19 / 09.06.06
You can definitely help alleviate social problems by paying attention to language. For example, people in power can avoid calling certain people "niggers" or "faggots" and so on.

Thinking about a multi-lingual nation, ideally, I suppose, each language group would have their own language for use within their group, and then add that to a sort of central pidgin soup that everyone understood and used when communicating outside their language group. Hmm.
 
 
Triumvir
16:13 / 09.06.06
(id)entity, that was my mistake, what i meant to say was although we are a nation of pluralism, we need an official language. However, despite the pluralistic nature of our society, a certain measure of assimilation is needed in our society. I'm not sure what you mean by saying making english an official language would "serve the purpose of demonstrating that English speakers hold the most power and intend to keep it that way." Of course english speakers have the most power. This is a nation where english is spoken as the official language of government. Now of course, I'm not for discrimination based on country of origin/origional language. In having a national language, we must make it easy for immigrants to assimilate, eg. have ESL courses offered at all public schools, have free english courses in immigrant neighborhoods, etc. And before one rails too heavily against a national language, we must remember that nearly all nations have one. And on the scale of language-based-jingoism, the US is pretty tolerant, when compared to many European countries. So in shot, English ought to be the official language, but make learning english easily accessable to new immigrants.
 
 
*
02:29 / 10.06.06
Actually he is in the 2006 Leaving Cert syllabus (Níl Aon Ní).
Oh, quite cool, never mind. (Actually my Irish is too bad to know if his poetry is actually good as Gaeilge. I like the sound of it, and I like the sense of the English translations, and that's as far as I can go.)
 
 
Leidan
16:19 / 10.06.06
The trouble is triumvir that I don't think this legislation involves making it easier for immigrants to learn english - thus it appears to be an essentially oppressive legislation; without making things any easier for immigrants, it will have the potential to be used to make things harder for them.

I don't actually see the reason why a language should be enshrined in law, especially if it's the main dominant language. If there are several languages in common usage, then it's beneficient as it insists that all the languages be represented on public documents and signs and so forth. But if it's the main language, it can only really be used in, at best (i.e. if not in oppressive ways) homogenising ways, something which needs to be very strongly justified.

If it can be justified, it needs to be backed up by the currently (i think) non-existent 'helpful' legislation - but surely its justification is dubious, considering the huge proportion of, say, hispanics in the country. Why is any amount of homogenisation necessary, anyway?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
10:02 / 12.06.06
Leidan speaks strong truth.

One of the assumptions functioning in this thread is that nations and national languages are sort of universal -- that every nation has one national language, and that every nation always has had a national language. Apart from the fact that nations themselves are quite recent historical entities, it's simply not true to claim the every nation has one national language. According to Wikipedia, only about half the world's states have an official language. (From the same page) Afghanistan, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Eritrea, Finland, India, Israel, Pakistan, Mexico, Paraguay, South Africa, Singapore, and Switzerland all have more than one official language. Places like Tahiti have French as the national language, but that reflects a history of colonisation rather than the desire of Tahiti's inhabitants to speak French; in East Timor everyone speaks Portuguese, but the most widely used language is Tetum. Cypruis is split down the middle, with Greek spoken on the Greek side and Turkish spoken on the Turkish side. You don't speak Turkish in the Greek section. (Admittedly, Cyprus also has two separate administrative bodies governing each side.)

Then there's the useful list of countries where language is a political issue....

My feeling is that the more languages people are required to learn in school as a matter of course, the better. In Australia, we are only taught English, and some other languages if you're lucky and attend the right schools. I feel hopelessly colonial and under-educated. Also, if you're already thinking bilingually, it's easier to pick up more.

Triumvir, what would be lost by teaching everyone in the US, for example, to speak English and Spanish equally?
 
 
alas
17:56 / 12.06.06
Triumvir, to add to some of the good points already made by Mister Disco, id/entity and others, I'd like to urge you to listen to this argument by the linguist Geoffrey Nunberg (speaking on NPR's "Fresh Air" program).

Nunberg asserts that, contrary to popular opinion, today's immigrants to the US are actually learning English faster, by several years, than immigrants did at the turn of the century, and that something like 90% or more immigrants, when asked, said that learning English was vital to success in the US. There's often an unspoken perception that today's immigrants are somehow "softer" or "lazier" than earlier immigrants, and this is simply not substantiated by the best evidence. Furthermore, Nunberg argues that attempts to codify English may be counterproductive from an economic point of view.

Anyway, I find it's a strong argument and one that I hope you'll take some time to listen to.
 
 
Lurid Archive
19:54 / 12.06.06
I don't think that there is an assumption about single national languages on this thread, fairly clearly, but I'm not sure that people realise what having an official language entails and how it impacts on day to day life. For instance,

Triumvir, what would be lost by teaching everyone in the US, for example, to speak English and Spanish equally? - Mister Disco

it is hard to contextualise this sort of question and, in fact, really get a handle on what it would entail. For a start, if one talks about legislating this sort of thing then one is more or less making a requirement that schools operate bilingually, on the whole if not in the specifics. On the other hand, one could treat Spanish as the less used language, and *not* have all text books, teaching materials and official documents (relating to teaching, both at the local and legislative level) in Spanish. That would work, of course, though it would naturally erode the "equally" part, and quite significantly. But questions still remain. What do you do if you have a potential employee who doesn't speak Spanish? Or English? If you leave flexibility, then in a sense all you have is an aspiration that can easily be overridden by local concerns (nothing wrong with that, of course, though this is some way from the suggestion that the languages be used equally). A legal requirement, however, is much more serious and with far more wide reaching consequences.

These aren't easy questions to answer, and I know since I work in a region which is essentially bilingual, but which has to deal with these questions all the time. As a for instance, all public schools in Catalunya are required to conduct lessons in Català, with some lessons in Spanish, as a way of preserving the language. It is an interesting political situation, to say the least.
 
 
Dragon
01:41 / 04.07.06
In the US, potential employees don't have to hire people they don't speak English. If companies were forced to hire them, they would also have to hire and train people who are at least bi-linqual in whatever language the applicant happened to speak. No company should be forced do that.

On the other hand, I've read about shops that are owned by people who can only speak a foreign language. These are typically found in areas where that language is spoken. If a customer walked in who didn't speak that language, it's just too bad for the customer. In the news recently, there was a restaurant on Pennsylvania that put up a sign saying, "This is America -- when ordering speak English." For some reason there were those who thought it was racist. So the restaurant owner now has to hire bi-lingual waiters or waitresses? and print menus in other languages? I don't think so.

I've read that some immigrants take the trouble to read and speak English, while others do not. Maybe if we made it a national language, it would encourage the latter group to do so.
 
 
astrojax69
05:30 / 04.07.06
which begs the question, should there be a national language designated, and if so what should it do?

in effect, lurid cogently points out upthread, each state has official documentation and it is pretty well ubiquitously produced in a single (historically developing) language. and major international bodies such as the un, ioc, etc have stipulated languages [though particularly note the plural] for their recorded history.

so, language can be used to be active or it can be an archive - what role might a dictated 'national language' seek to do? and what creedence on its authority should we give to its efficacy in such a mobile global population?

myself, i think it wrong for a state to impose upon me the means about which i might choose to communicate. i think it right for the state to provide all required infrastructure for me to acquire the skills in the national language, if one is to be expected to communicate with the state.

fascinating issue.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:15 / 04.07.06
Dragon - your news story was mentioned at the start of this thread, with a link to extensive discussion elsewhere.

Astrojax: Hmm. But when you say that each state has official documentation and it is pretty well ubiquitously produced in a single (historically developing) language - that's wrong, isn't it? In the history of most countries, different cultures employ differenct languages in a series of ongoing cultural shifts. Also, in the case of a lot of countries, there is a point where the indigenous culture is taken over, and their official documentation starts to be produced in the language of the occupying force. So, at a certain point bureaucracies in India or Nigeria have to start recording transactions in English, in order to have it audited by an English-speaking management. So, the clerical class learn to speak English, and English becomes the language used for discussions between speakers of different languages inside and outside the borders of what becomes or was previously the nation-state. How does that fit into the structure? In India, for example, you have fifteen official languages, including the "national" language (Hindi, spoken by about a third of the population) but much communication occurs in English. Also, you have another language - Hindustani - which is widespread in usage in the north but not recognised as an official language.

In the United States, it might make sense to go for the same solution you have in Wales and in Quebec - in areas where a large number of people speak Spanish, have Spanish recognised as an official but not a national language and have dual language road signs and offical documentation. the market can then decide how it deals with the language split - if you want Spanish customers, have an employee who speaks Spanish, and if not don't.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:13 / 04.07.06
For some reason there were those who thought it was racist.

That's because it is racist, Dragon, and no amount of obsequious smiley faces are going to change that. As you say, there are already practical difficulties that will most likely prevent those who do not speak English (or another language any retail staff might have), to a workable degree, from taking part with ease in day-to-day communications which others may take for granted. This would be the case even if the shopkeeper had not placed the sign in his window.

So what is the purpose of the sign? Namely, to humiliate those whose English does not meet the shopkeeper's standards, to make them feel ashamed to even speak to one another in another language while at the counter ordering in English, to trumpet his own racist intolerance, and to encourage racism in other customers.

Those who do not speak the language that is dominant in any nation state are already at a disadvantage. Legislating for a "national language" would only serve to increase this.
 
 
feline
12:25 / 04.07.06
I've read that some immigrants take the trouble to read and speak English, while others do not. Maybe if we made it a national language, it would encourage the latter group to do so.

Dragon, have you ever learned another language (as an adult, particularly)? Do you know how hard it is? Some people have an aptitude for languages; others don't. Sometimes it's more than just 'taking the trouble'. I teach English as a second language to adult asylum seekers as a volunteer, and I can tell you that for someone who speaks and writes* Arabic, for example, to learn English in adulthood is bloody HARD, not to mention potentially humiliating and confronting for all sorts of obvious reasons. Any implication that it's laziness or disinterest that stops people speaking the language of the new country they move to, is a dangerous one...


(*and a lot of the female refugees here also don't write in their first language at all, making it even harder)




I think the way the French treat French is a bit over the top. Languages have to evolve. And always will, and still are, including French...


Yes, Red Concrete, you're right: all languages (including French) will evolve; but the French are hoping their language won't evolve into Frenglish. I think the reason they're focusing so much on their language is similar to the reason why the Irish teach Gaeilge texts, or 'all public schools in Catalunya are required to conduct lessons in Català'. Language is power, as others have said in this thread, and as Europe becomes more of a cohesive entity, English will become the dominant language. The French are trying to save one 'minority' language. I doubt they'll succeed, but I don't blame them for trying.
 
 
Dragon
12:59 / 04.07.06
It seems the link I gave went to a site which misrepresented the facts. The sign actually said, "This Is America. When Ordering Please Speak English."

The propriator doesn't demand that anyone speak English. It occurred to me that there are those who do not understand English or can't read it, won't be bothered by the sign, anyway. Also, he doesn't turn anyone away. The owner says they try to help people with their orders, but adds that he can't guarantee the order is correct.

I guess I don't 'get' how this is racist.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:06 / 04.07.06
So, he has that sign as a reassurance to his customers who do speak English that he sees this as an important characteristic of being American, but he actually does not penalise people who do not speak English - in fact he gives them extra attention - and the only criticism he has for them is expressed in a language they don't speak?

That is indeed not racism - it's being a pandering pussy. Does nobody have the courage of their convictions any more?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:46 / 04.07.06
Raising the bar slightly - one interesting thing about that sign is the way that it associates America with speaking English. As has been mentioned, at the moment the United States has no official language. Pennsylvania does, but at the time of this sign being erected it did not. In fact, until the 1950s German was the second official language of Pennsylvania, so if Mr. G had wanted to be true to his state's official-language roots he would have put up a sign saying "This is Pennsylvania; please speak English or German".

Further, of course, the expectation to speak English extends only to naturalised American citizens - a native-born American need not do so, nor need a foreign visitor. So, in fact, Mr. G is professing his ignorance - "I am unable to speak any language other than English - please speak English". Is this a reflection on a poor state of language teaching in the United States?
 
 
Dragon
01:44 / 05.07.06
Many of the people in that area not speaking English are illegals, according to what I've read. I'm sure most people coming legally are more likely to either speak, or learn to speak, the dominant language. Immigrant kids often pick it up just by being around other kids who do speak English.

Schools in the United States teach Enlish to all students, including those who do not speak the language. Lessons for other languages are at the request of the student.
 
 
silpulsar
04:38 / 05.07.06
i think an important point to remember is the strategy for pursuing this kind of enforced "official language". the US govt has already tipped their hand by passing legislation to force medicaid recipients to show a passport (how many poor people have those) or a birth certificate (hell i don't even have mine) in order to receive benefits, based on the notion that a gerbajillion illegal immigrants MUST be stealing benefits, when the facts just do not back it up (and now it's just causing tons of bureaucratic backups and the loss of benefits for people who need them).

this language thing is not based on the notion that we are bringing the country together, or accomplishing something that will make the country run smoothly. it is a political strategy, put out there to divide the country even more than it is. it is put out there to widen the gap, arouse xenophobia (to add to the lists of -phobias that can be taken advantage of politically), and to disempower anyone who isn't from here.

its also rather frustrating to me because i don't believe someone should be forced to abandon their culture or assimilate just because they needed to leave their home country. many people come here because there were no opportunities in their country, or it was just too violent to stay. people here keep wanting to see immigration as some offense against themselves when most times it is just people wanting a better life for themselves.

i think someone made a great point that the govt wants to have an "official language" but will probably not take any steps to insure helping people learn that language. and i too have to point out that learning another language as an adult is INCREDIBLY difficult.

when the majority of americans can barely speak or spell their own language, i have some difficulties taking seriously their need to enforce that language on other people.

that was a tad rambly, but i think you get my point.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:08 / 05.07.06
Sorry, Dragon, but I can't see a connection between what you have said and the rest of the discussion. Could you explain?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:54 / 05.07.06
Back on the use of the official language: I'm reminded of the decision in the mid-19th Century to make English the official language taught to and spoken with Native Americans. This movement removed from official existence a vast number of languages and language cultures, some of which never recovered. Oddly, the President who enforced the forcible relocation of many Native Americans west of the Mississippi at around the same period, Martin van Buren, did not have English as a first language.
 
 
Dragon
12:02 / 05.07.06
Haus,

That last short post was in response to this:

So, in fact, Mr. G is professing his ignorance - "I am unable to speak any language other than English - please speak English". Is this a reflection on a poor state of language teaching in the United States?

I guess you could consider it a side issue.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:05 / 05.07.06
So... you think the guy who put the sign in his window is an "illegal"?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:09 / 05.07.06
I don't see the relevance. It doesn't seem to me to make any difference too my Vento whether the people buying are "illegals" or not - unless he wishes to make a principled stand on not serving unregistered workers, and has rather foolishly decided that the best way to identify them is to check their language skills - this before we even discover whether or not your statement is accurate.

As for language teaching - again, I don't see the relevance. Somebody on holiday in Pennsylvania, God help them, would not have gone through the US education system, nor would they be an unregistered worker. I would ask again - is Mr. Vento just embarrassed by his lack of education in any language other than English? That's very sad, but it's hardly the fault of his customers, and since America has no official language, "This is America, please speak English" has no logical sense unless it is "This is America, and the poor standard of education I have received in the US school system means I only understand English. Please speak English".
 
 
Dragon
12:12 / 05.07.06
Does anyone believe we should get rid of our borders? Anyone would be free to come or go as they pleased.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:14 / 05.07.06
That's an interesting question, Dragon, but it's not one that really fits into this thread. Maybe you could start a new thread in the Switchboard about that. Right here, however, I'd like you to focus on the topic at hand - whether nations should have an official language. I still don't really understand the point you are making above about the role of "illegals" in Mr Vento's decision to ask his patrons (in, apparently, a really wussy way) to speak English because they are at that moment on a continent the dominant languages of which are English, Spanish and Portuguese.

If we assume that he means "this is a place inside the United States of America: please limit your language choices when ordering to languages recognised as official languages by states of that union", then why isn't he encouraging patrons also to order freely in French, Spanish and Hawai'ian, all of which are recognised as official languages by one of the United States?
 
 
Dragon
01:34 / 06.07.06
Nothing wrong with the standard of education in the US insofar as only teaching English goes, in my opinion.

BTW, kids who are sons and daughters of Illegals are in our schools, hospitals and so forth. We are paying for this -- their families are not paying taxes to support those services. I'd argue they have no respect for our laws. Why should we respect them? I can give you an example. It is necessary for illegals to drive. In order for them to drive, they must have insurance (required by law) so they can get the necessary window stickers. They do so, but then immediately cancel it.

Maybe you are right, I should start another thread.
 
 
alas
03:14 / 06.07.06
Nothing wrong with the standard of education in the US insofar as only teaching English goes, in my opinion.

So, despite the fact that we are dependent on the labor and resources of the rest of the world for most of the products and many of the services we use every single day, we should not trouble ourselves to learn at least one other language? You don't see anything problematic about this at all?

People who are here without proper documentation are a complex and diverse lot. Your broad-based swipes against them lack proper documentation. I could, using your logic, say that you have no respect for the basic rules of the headshop, where we require evidence for claims and generally favor arguments that make some effort at careful analysis. I might even be tempted to say that, therefore, you deserve no respect as a human being.

However, I do not believe that is the most ethical stance. Instead, what I do is try to assume that perhaps you have good but flawed reasons for your stance, which I therefore believe to be a flawed stance. I do not assume that, because you're not really following the rules for this forum, you disrepect it. I am willing to assume that you are here in good faith, that you're enthusiastic to be here or you would not be participating in our public life. I assume that you may, in fact, be victim of some bad propoganda, and that maybe I should talk further with you before leaping to the conclusion that your behavior results from some fatal character flaw that makes you nearly subhuman.

(By the way, the term "illegals" is dehumanizing. Do you mean to imply that these persons are less that fully human?)

I hear you saying that you believe these workers are getting one over on you because they are using services that they refuse to pay taxes on.

Actually, many of them do pay lots of taxes: sales taxes, for one, and rent (most landlords who I know make sure that the rent they collect covers their property taxes--and they still can take many tax benefits from that property that are not available to renters. E.g., despite the fact that they probably bought the real estate with the hope and in many places an expectation of increased property value over time, real estate values gets depreciated every year--even when it may well be demonstrably true that the property is increasing in value.)

Federal taxes, the ones taken out of your paycheck, do not usually really go to local projects like schools and hospitals--not in any direct manner. Schools are usually funded by property taxes and state-local budgets depend heavily on sales taxes. If the persons without proper documentation are living here in an apartment and buying food and other goods, then they are almost certainly paying a larger portion of their own salaries in taxes--directly or indirectly--to pay for many of the services that they use--than do many of the extremely wealthy persons in this country.

In fact, Arguably, those who really get out of paying taxes in this country are the wealthiest Americans and corporate interests, who are shouldering less and less of the total tax burden.

What I'd call this, Dragon, is a successful divide-and-conquer strategy. My guess is that your total income and assets are closer to those of an immigrant family--yes even an illegal immigrant family--than to those of Bill Gates. However, it's in the interest of the wealthiest people in this country for you to feel both vaguely superior to but threatened by those workers that, actually, you and I depend upon every day. And with whom we should perhaps feel solidarity.

Do you know any illegal immigrants? I know several people who are here in this capacity: they are threatened by US law on a regular basis. I'd venture to say that they do, deeply, respect it--more than, it would seem to me, many CEOs do. Most of them are, however, poor. That is why they are here. They are here doing work that we depend on, but that employers do not want to (or, in the case of some small businesses, possibly cannot) pay a liveable or even sub-poverty wage to do, by US standards.

I accept that some workers probably do default on their insurance. But I wonder how much more prevalent this practice is amongst undocumented workers than amongst other similarly poor people, who are also trying to decide between paying for food, rent, and school supplies and paying insurance? Have you ever faced such a choice?

If anything, I put forth the claim that it is the wealthiest Americans, some of whom are the employers of illegal workers, who most shamefully lack a respect for our laws, and for US workers. And, in fact, many of those employers are also the ones who can pay fancy accountants to make sure that they can hide all their assets and avoid paying federal and state taxes.

But even more than most of these regular employers, many of whom are small businesses struggling to make it in an admittedly messy and difficult world, I'm particularly concerned about the lack of ethics of the multinational corporations who can outsource their work from country to country, without a visas, often on massive "tax holidays" (i.e., they pay no taxes while providing jobs that are frequently the economic equivalent of sharecropping--young workers often wind up owing their souls to the company store because they're not being paid enough to get out of the work they're doing). Here's a summary of this basic argument, with a variety of statistics to back it up.

Let's face it: most workers are trapped, including you and me, to some degree. Ask anyone who has moved to another country to work--or tried to. These massive corporate entities, meanwhile, know no borders and can move on a moment's notice, thus driving down wages all over the planet, putting pressure on smaller, more stable businessnesses back home, on workers from places like Mexico who find themselves competing with even more poorly paid workers from China. And on people, perhaps like yourself, seeking secure employment in the "developed" world, who find themselves stuck with less job security, fewer benefits, and less pay than previous generations.
 
 
astrojax69
06:42 / 06.07.06
haus, a bit late in the context of the thread having moved on, but the points you make about colonial powers exerting their language, etc, is what i meant in the very shorthand way (culturally developing) i used. a bit opaque, i guess! so good points well made.

and dragon, to second alas, i'd like to see a thread on the abolition of national borders.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:06 / 06.07.06
alas, I don't know how you do it. I would have just posted the last sentence of your second paragraph, without the qualifier.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply