http://nj1015.com/bilingual-street-signs-coming-to-new-brunswick-good-idea-or-bad-poll/
I know New Brunswick is very heavily diverse with a lot of Hispanics, (hell I live in the borough next door.) but this is seriously overdoing it.
This is America. Learn English.
Quote from: the article
...to insure safety on the road.
Um, is it just me, or should that be an E? :P
EDIT: Fixed my quote mistake.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 18, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
This is America. Learn English.
Go to Puerto Rico and complain that the signs are in Spanish.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 18, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
Quote from: the article
...to insure safety on the road.
Um, is it just me, or should that be an E? :P
Not really. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/assure.html
I'm not a conservative or a Republican, but I agree with Roadsguy. If you're going to live in a country, learn to speak the language. If I moved to, say, Germany, I would learn to speak German before I even moved. Not being able to understand the native language can be dangerous. It can cause miscommunication, and even death when immigrants can't understand what, say, a cop says. I hate to say this, but the immigrants who don't speak English are one of three things: too stupid to learn, too lazy to learn, or they refuse to learn out of stubbornness. None of those are good traits, and we should rethink who we let into our country. When illegals are caught they should be given a tattoo and deported back to their home country. If they are caught illegally again, then it's 20 years of hard time. That might slow the problem down.
Quote from: bugo on September 18, 2012, 09:20:43 AM
I'm not a conservative or a Republican, but I agree with Roadsguy. If you're going to live in a country, learn to speak the language. If I moved to, say, Germany, I would learn to speak German before I even moved. Not being able to understand the native language can be dangerous. It can cause miscommunication, and even death when immigrants can't understand what, say, a cop says. I hate to say this, but the immigrants who don't speak English are one of three things: too stupid to learn, too lazy to learn, or they refuse to learn out of stubbornness. None of those are good traits, and we should rethink who we let into our country. When illegals are caught they should be given a tattoo and deported back to their home country. If they are caught illegally again, then it's 20 years of hard time. That might slow the problem down.
Agree! The only exceptions are in countries where the native language is in a different alphabet - then they post signs in the native alphabet with English subtitles (for international visitors).
This challenge does not exist for our Spanish-speaking friends. Heck, I don't speak French yet I have little difficulty reading a French exit or directional sign. Figure it out for cryin' out loud.
Quote from: bugo on September 18, 2012, 09:20:43 AM
I'm not a conservative or a Republican, but I agree with Roadsguy. If you're going to live in a country, learn to speak the language. If I moved to, say, Germany, I would learn to speak German before I even moved. Not being able to understand the native language can be dangerous. It can cause miscommunication, and even death when immigrants can't understand what, say, a cop says. I hate to say this, but the immigrants who don't speak English are one of three things: too stupid to learn, too lazy to learn, or they refuse to learn out of stubbornness. None of those are good traits, and we should rethink who we let into our country. When illegals are caught they should be given a tattoo and deported back to their home country. If they are caught illegally again, then it's 20 years of hard time. That might slow the problem down.
No need to speak the local language in order to comprehend the traffic signs, as long as they use a Latin character set.
But this sounds like political correctness on the part of someone in New Brunswick, and that's a bad thing (in my opinion).
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 18, 2012, 10:10:57 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 18, 2012, 09:20:43 AM
I'm not a conservative or a Republican, but I agree with Roadsguy. If you're going to live in a country, learn to speak the language. If I moved to, say, Germany, I would learn to speak German before I even moved. Not being able to understand the native language can be dangerous. It can cause miscommunication, and even death when immigrants can't understand what, say, a cop says. I hate to say this, but the immigrants who don't speak English are one of three things: too stupid to learn, too lazy to learn, or they refuse to learn out of stubbornness. None of those are good traits, and we should rethink who we let into our country. When illegals are caught they should be given a tattoo and deported back to their home country. If they are caught illegally again, then it's 20 years of hard time. That might slow the problem down.
Agree! The only exceptions are in countries where the native language is in a different alphabet - then they post signs in the native alphabet with English subtitles (for international visitors).
Tahlequah, OK has signs in English and Cherokee. Although they're more for tourist purposes (Tahlequah is the capital of the Cherokee Nation) I have no problem with them. I actually think they're kind of cool.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 18, 2012, 10:16:05 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 18, 2012, 09:20:43 AM
I'm not a conservative or a Republican, but I agree with Roadsguy. If you're going to live in a country, learn to speak the language. If I moved to, say, Germany, I would learn to speak German before I even moved. Not being able to understand the native language can be dangerous. It can cause miscommunication, and even death when immigrants can't understand what, say, a cop says. I hate to say this, but the immigrants who don't speak English are one of three things: too stupid to learn, too lazy to learn, or they refuse to learn out of stubbornness. None of those are good traits, and we should rethink who we let into our country. When illegals are caught they should be given a tattoo and deported back to their home country. If they are caught illegally again, then it's 20 years of hard time. That might slow the problem down.
No need to speak the local language in order to comprehend the traffic signs, as long as they use a Latin character set.
But this sounds like political correctness on the part of someone in New Brunswick, and that's a bad thing (in my opinion).
Amen. PC is almost always bad. It's just a ploy to make whites feel guilty for being who they are and to stifle free speech. PC leads to hate crime laws, which leads to laws banning criticism of religion. And it empowers words that need to be less empowered.
Sign of the times: Seems that the Spanish language is taking over new parts of the world every day. Univision, V-me and other television channels that broadcast "en espanol" are perfect examples of this.
Quote from: bugo on September 18, 2012, 10:42:50 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 18, 2012, 10:10:57 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 18, 2012, 09:20:43 AM
I'm not a conservative or a Republican, but I agree with Roadsguy. If you're going to live in a country, learn to speak the language. If I moved to, say, Germany, I would learn to speak German before I even moved. Not being able to understand the native language can be dangerous. It can cause miscommunication, and even death when immigrants can't understand what, say, a cop says. I hate to say this, but the immigrants who don't speak English are one of three things: too stupid to learn, too lazy to learn, or they refuse to learn out of stubbornness. None of those are good traits, and we should rethink who we let into our country. When illegals are caught they should be given a tattoo and deported back to their home country. If they are caught illegally again, then it's 20 years of hard time. That might slow the problem down.
Agree! The only exceptions are in countries where the native language is in a different alphabet - then they post signs in the native alphabet with English subtitles (for international visitors).
Tahlequah, OK has signs in English and Cherokee. Although they're more for tourist purposes (Tahlequah is the capital of the Cherokee Nation) I have no problem with them. I actually think they're kind of cool.
I have no problem with that at all.
Just like I have no problem with Ontario posting signs (in certain parts of the province) in English and in French. Or Finland posting signs in certain municipalities in Swedish and Finnish.
And I have no problem with Quebec only posting in French (that
is the official language there, though I think their efforts to discourage English are a little over-the-top - from looking online, it looks like about 9% or 10% of Quebec residents speak English as their primary tongue). Nor does it bother me that Puerto Rico uses (mostly) Spanish on its highway signs.
But in most of the United States, English is the primary language, so that's what should be on our signs. I don't mind seeing some Spanish as one gets close to the international border with Mexico, nor does it bother me to see some French in areas of the U.S. that are close to Quebec (in fact, in those areas, I think more bilingual signs
might be a good idea). But New Jersey does not qualify on either count, and its signs should be in English.
The politically correct statement that applies here is that driving is a privilege, not a right. There's no reason someone who doesn't know what "slow down" means should be permitted to drive. If it's complicated instructions on which direction reversible lanes go, I could understand using multiple languages. (In fact, I seem to remember that this is where Quebec breaks their own rule.)
(PS: "English-only" is political correctness aimed at the group of people who feel offended by not being able to understand what others are saying about them. :sombrero:)
And because it bears repeating: :sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero::sombrero:
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 18, 2012, 10:16:05 AM
But this sounds like political correctness on the part of someone in New Brunswick, and that's a bad thing (in my opinion).
I don't know who it is, but Mayor Cahill has been known for this kind of thing. Under his administration, he's managed to ban bikes from sidewalks (never enforced and I've never been busted.), caused a legal fight with a restaurateur because he's apparently a Boston Red Sox fan. (The guy wants to open a place on Route 1 named Buck Foston's and there is no explanation officially to why Mayor Cahill has held this up, but everyone believes he's doing it because of his baseball choice. Of course, I have also heard that some are complaining about the B & F reversed. However, New Brunswick has several CLUCK U Chickens. If that's acceptable, and Buck Foston's is not, we have some serious hypocrisy.)
As for the topic at hand, I think its overdoing it, and while I am trying to learn Spanish for credits anyway, that won't stop me from thinking so. Hell the bike signs that say you can't do it on the sidewalk are bilingual. The city is nearly 50% (49.93%) Latino or Hispanic, so it's not a shock that Cahill managed. Keep in mind that Middlesex County leans heavily Democratic, Edison-Highland Park-New Brunswick straight are all Democrat controlled.
I don't get people's problem with bilingual signs, literature, etc. In our country of 314 million people, Spanish is the primary language for 37 million (over age five). That's more than 11% of the population. About half of those speak English "very well", which means that 5% to 6% of our country speaks Spanish primarily and English less than "very well". In some areas of the country, it is possible to get by just fine without ever learning English well. There are three states in which more than than 30% of the population speaks Spanish at home; there are ten metro areas at more than 30%. These are facts. The statement This is America. Learn English implies that all of America speaks English, but this is simply not true.
Bilingual signage is not an issue of illegal immigration–it is false to think that all hispanophones are illegal immigrants: kicking out all illegal immigrants would not resolve the issue. Conflating the two issues is nothing more than racism. Statistically, most immigrants do learn English, and nearly all second-generation immigrants do. But it's foolish to think that people can learn a foreign language instantaneously. Have you ever learned a foreign language? Did it take time? Imagine being a stay-at-home mom with little opportunity to practice English; how long would it take you to learn the language?
Furthermore, when a person's entire social network speaks Spanish, there is little drive/reason for that person to learn English. The statistcs I listed above (and others) are proof that it is not, in fact, simply necessary to learn English to live in America. If it were, then more people would. While it is convenient to label a certain segment of the population as stupid, lazy, and stubborn (racism again), the fact is that people do what they need to survive; apparently, this does not always include learning English.
Hispanophones are a part of America, not just anglophones. In some places, they are a bigger part than in others. It is not the place of the DOTs or streets departments to promote or encourage this language or that; it's their place to maintain safe roadways for the populace. When a substantial segment of the populace speaks Spanish (or Mandarin, or whatever), then it is entirely appropriate to post signs in both languages.
Now, to the link posted in the OP. I think "Slow Down / Más Despacio" is a stupid sign to begin with. As noted in the article, speed limits come in numerical format, and 20 means the same thing in Spanish as in English. Not to mention that this initiative is aimed at Puerto Ricans (who aren't even immigrants, by the way), who come from a place that uses the MUTCD unaltered–on regulatory signs, SPEED LIMIT simply is replaced with VELOCIDAD MAXIMA. It's not a language issue, it's a cultural issue: people don't slow down because they don't feel like it, not because they don't know they're supposed to.
My ancestors from countries like Norway and Germany learned English. Why are Mexicans special? Why shouldn't they assimilate like pretty much every other ethnic group in the US?
Here's the problem with bilingual signage: It's hurts the very people it's designed to help.
In America, English is the language of success. Meaning, you can't get very far if you don't know English and know it well. Sorry, that's just the way it is. You can say America is a mix of this and that, but if you aren't fluent in English, you won't go very far. (I know there are exeptions, but they are exceptions.)
Anything that enables someone who doesn't know English to delay learning it only hurts them by delaying and limiting to some extent their ability to succeed.
Why? Because (in addition to the Constitution) the one thing that binds Americans together from town to town and region to region, across cultural differences is the same language. English.
I don't label anyone stupid or lazy. It can be just plain hard to learn a second language as an adult. Anything that encourages the newcomer to learn the local language is helpful to them. Anything that enables them to not learn it hurts them.
It's not an immigration issue, legal or otherwise. It's a success and compassion issue.
Quote from: bugo on September 18, 2012, 04:56:50 PM
My ancestors from countries like Norway and Germany learned English. Why are Mexicans special? Why shouldn't they assimilate like pretty much every other ethnic group in the US?
It's very likely that your Norwegian and German ancestors learned English at about the same rate that today's Mexican immigrants do. Acutally, there has been a slight increase in the percentage of Americans speaking English competently since the 1880s. They learned English because they had to do so in order to function in society, and most Mexican immigrants do so as well. Some European immigrants back in the day did not assimilate, just as some Mexican immigrants today do not assimilate.
I used to live in Chicago, and frequently encountered people speaking Polish. I can think of a few apartment complexes in my current hometown of Wichita where a sizable number of the residents speak Arabic. Mexicans aren't special: most immigrants from all corners learn English, and some immigrants from all corners do not. It's always been that way, and it always will. One big difference is that there are more first- and second-generation Mexican Americans out there than German Americans or Norwegian Americans; for this reason, it is easier to get by speaking only Spanish than it would be by speaking only German or Norwegian.
Quote from: qguy on September 18, 2012, 05:02:42 PM
Here's the problem with bilingual signage: It's hurts the very people it's designed to help.
In America, English is the language of success. Meaning, you can't get very far if you don't know English and know it well. Sorry, that's just the way it is. You can say America is a mix of this and that, but if you aren't fluent in English, you won't go very far. (I know there are exeptions, but they are exceptions.)
Anything that enables someone who doesn't know English to delay learning it only hurts them by delaying and limiting to some extent their ability to succeed.
Anything that encourages the newcomer to learn the local language is helpful to them. Anything that enables them to not learn it hurts them.
But, again, it's not the place of the DOT or city streets department to use signage as a way of promoting or restricting upward mobility; it's their place to maintain safe roadways. If bilingual signs make the roads safer, then they should use bilingual signs.
Quote from: qguy on September 18, 2012, 05:02:42 PM
Why? Because (in addition to the Constitution) the one thing that binds Americans together from town to town and region to region, across cultural differences is the same language. English.
You're right. I don't think anyone is suggesting removing English from the signs–just adding another language. English will remain something that binds American together. At least, it will remain so as long as most Americans speak English–an occurrence which is not guaranteed to continue indefinitely.
Quote from: qguy on September 18, 2012, 05:02:42 PM
I don't label anyone stupid or lazy. It can be just plain hard to learn a second language as an adult.
I know. Bugo did.
Quote from: qguy on September 18, 2012, 05:02:42 PM
It's not an immigration issue, legal or otherwise. It's a success and compassion issue.
Again (again), that's not the place of the DOT or streets department.
Furthermore, you are imposing your (and others') ideal of success on someone else. If a person wants to move to the United States, work a menial job for Just Over Broke, raise a family, and not necessarily
succeed as you define success, then what's wrong with that? Frankly, it is not the goal of many Mexican immigrants to climb the proverbial ladder as far as you seem to want them to. Those who
do have higher ambitions will take whatever steps are necessary to get them there, and that very likely includes learning English–whether the stinking road signs are bilingual or not. As I said, people do what they need to. Those who are 'hindered' by not learning English generally don't see it as a hindrance, while those who do see it as a hindrance generally learn English anyway.
I think there is a misunderstanding going on here. People seem to assume that bilingual signing is always provided because, without legends in the non-dominant language, speakers of that language will not understand what the signs are trying to communicate and will not be able to function. But in countries where the same alphabet is used for multilingual sign messages, it is rare for the second language to be used purely for communication. Instead, by far the more common application is to put a traditionally disadvantaged language group on an equal footing in the public space. This is why bilingual signing is provided in Ontario, Manitoba, Wales, and Finland among other places. You don't usually see signs erected for the other reason except in language contact territory such as the US southern border or parts of Switzerland where French, German, or Italian speakers border on each other. (The alphabet caveat is important, however--in countries where citizens and visitors speak multiple languages that have their own separate alphabets, like Israel, multilingual signing is unavoidably necessary for communication.)
I really doubt that bilingual signing will do anything to discourage hispanophones in New Brunswick from assimilating. It does give them visibility and status as a language minority, but that is not portable to the nearby other boroughs, and it does not remove the need to acquire at least a working knowledge of English in order to function in contexts other than the public roads. My concern is that having sign messages in more than one language increases the time required to recognize and read each sign, which is not a good thing to do in visually busy urban environments.
I also take issue with assimilation being spoken of as if it were some sort of moral duty that should be made a legal one as well. I don't deny that assimilation tends to reduce the frictional drag of social interaction in a new country, and this reduction confers economic advantages, but to insist that immigrants should assimilate is tantamount to asserting that the unearned advantage of incumbency is deserved. In short, it is like saying might (or wealth) makes right.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 18, 2012, 06:33:56 PM
My concern is that having sign messages in more than one language increases the time required to recognize and read each sign, which is not a good thing to do in visually busy urban environments.
I share this concern, especially in locations where there is more than one sizable minority (think San Francisco). At what point is "sizable" sizable enough? And how many languages should be allowed? I don't think those questions are insurmountable, and I still do not despise bilingual signage. But we need to be realistic about the advantages and disadvantages.
Quote from: NE2 on September 18, 2012, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 18, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
This is America. Learn English.
Go to Puerto Rico and complain that the signs are in Spanish.
English is not our official language. I have no problem with individual cities erecting bilingual signage if their demographics are such that they feel it will improve compliance or safety. It's their budget to use to the best means possible.
Quote from: NE2 on September 18, 2012, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 18, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
Quote from: the article
...to insure safety on the road.
Um, is it just me, or should that be an E? :P
Not really. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/assure.html
The word "ensure" will disappear at the rate the other ones are misused. I favor proper English, which would be the "E" as noted.
Quote from: Steve on September 18, 2012, 08:40:33 PM
The word "ensure" will disappear at the rate the other ones are misused. I favor proper English, which would be the "E" as noted.
Both words have similar etymologies. Insurance is a way to ensure something.
Insure is accepted as an alternate spelling for
ensure, but
ensure is not accepted as an alternate spelling for
insure.
Quote from: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionUsage Note: Assure, ensure, and insure all mean "to make secure or certain." Only assure is used with reference to a person in the sense of "to set the mind at rest": assured the leader of his loyalty. Although ensure and insure are generally interchangeable, only insure is now widely used in American English in the commercial sense of "to guarantee persons or property against risk."
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2012, 05:21:23 PM
It's very likely that your Norwegian and German ancestors learned English at about the same rate that today's Mexican immigrants do.
This. My grandmother never learned to speak English fully fluently, and could barely speak it at all until my parents started dating - my mother was the first person she ever had reason to converse with who did not speak Italian, and this forced her to work on her English. And this was 25 years after she moved here from Italy. But her children speak English as well as any of us.
As for the OP, it's an utter waste of money, but only because signs which unthreateningly ask drivers to "slow down" as a warning rather than a regulation are pointless in any language. Nothing wrong with bilingual signage if it actually says something meaningful.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2012, 04:49:34 PM
I don't get people's problem with bilingual signs, literature, etc. In our country of 314 million people, Spanish is the primary language for 37 million (over age five). That's more than 11% of the population. About half of those speak English "very well", which means that 5% to 6% of our country speaks Spanish primarily and English less than "very well". In some areas of the country, it is possible to get by just fine without ever learning English well. There are three states in which more than than 30% of the population speaks Spanish at home; there are ten metro areas at more than 30%. These are facts. The statement This is America. Learn English implies that all of America speaks English, but this is simply not true.
As was stated by another poster, English is the language of success in the United States. It is also the language of business nationally.
Persons settling in the U.S. should expect to learn English.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2012, 04:49:34 PM
Bilingual signage is not an issue of illegal immigration–it is false to think that all hispanophones are illegal immigrants: kicking out all illegal immigrants would not resolve the issue. Conflating the two issues is nothing more than racism.
I agree with you.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2012, 04:49:34 PM
Statistically, most immigrants do learn English, and nearly all second-generation immigrants do. But it's foolish to think that people can learn a foreign language instantaneously. Have you ever learned a foreign language? Did it take time? Imagine being a stay-at-home mom with little opportunity to practice English; how long would it take you to learn the language?
Not instantly, but most human beings retain the ability to learn and develop.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2012, 04:49:34 PM
Furthermore, when a person's entire social network speaks Spanish, there is little drive/reason for that person to learn English. The statistcs I listed above (and others) are proof that it is not, in fact, simply necessary to learn English to live in America. If it were, then more people would. While it is convenient to label a certain segment of the population as stupid, lazy, and stubborn (racism again), the fact is that people do what they need to survive; apparently, this does not always include learning English.
It's not a matter of race (and I say that as someone who learned English as a second language).
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2012, 04:49:34 PM
Hispanophones are a part of America, not just anglophones. In some places, they are a bigger part than in others. It is not the place of the DOTs or streets departments to promote or encourage this language or that; it's their place to maintain safe roadways for the populace. When a substantial segment of the populace speaks Spanish (or Mandarin, or whatever), then it is entirely appropriate to post signs in both languages.
Actually, most of our signs should be designed so there's no need to know English in order to comprehend what they mean anyway.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2012, 04:49:34 PM
Now, to the link posted in the OP. I think "Slow Down / Más Despacio" is a stupid sign to begin with. As noted in the article, speed limits come in numerical format, and 20 means the same thing in Spanish as in English. Not to mention that this initiative is aimed at Puerto Ricans (who aren't even immigrants, by the way), who come from a place that uses the MUTCD unaltered–on regulatory signs, SPEED LIMIT simply is replaced with VELOCIDAD MAXIMA. It's not a language issue, it's a cultural issue: people don't slow down because they don't feel like it, not because they don't know they're supposed to.
People from Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens, and they have every right to speak Spanish - especially when they are in P.R. But most of the rest of the U.S. is English-speaking, and they need to master that language if they are going to live or do business on the U.S. mainland.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2012, 12:35:22 AM
As was stated by another poster, English is the language of success in most of the United States.
Fixed that for you. There are plenty of places in this country where it is entirely possible to be "successful" (again, I put that word in quotation marks because your idea of success is not necessarily the same as someone else's) without knowing English–specifically, knowing Spanish only. Not in most of the U.S., but in some places.
A good example is the border town of Nogales (AZ): 92.6% speak Spanish; 51.2% speak Spanish, and English less than "very well"; 81.4% Mexican population.
For a larger city, try Santa Ana (CA): 62.5% speak Spanish; 40.9% speak Spanish, and English less than "very well"; 65.9% Mexican population.
In these environments, it is very possible to be "successful" without knowledge of the English language. The town in the OP (New Brunswick, NJ): 45.5% speak Spanish; 31.2% speak Spanish, and English less than "very well"; 36.2% combined foreign-born population. While these numbers are lower than the two examples I gave above, they are still considerable. When nearly half of a community speaks Spanish, I question the idea that Spanish could not be the "language of success" for a resident.
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2012, 08:53:33 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2012, 12:35:22 AM
As was stated by another poster, English is the language of success in most of the United States.
Fixed that for you. There are plenty of places in this country where it is entirely possible to be "successful" (again, I put that word in quotation marks because your idea of success is not necessarily the same as someone else's) without knowing English–specifically, knowing Spanish only. Not in most of the U.S., but in some places.
I already used the
most of modification lower-down in the post.
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2012, 08:53:33 AM
A good example is the border town of Nogales (AZ): 92.6% speak Spanish; 51.2% speak Spanish, and English less than "very well"; 81.4% Mexican population.
For a larger city, try Santa Ana (CA): 62.5% speak Spanish; 40.9% speak Spanish, and English less than "very well"; 65.9% Mexican population.
Nogales probably ought to have bilingual signs because it is hard up against the border with Mexico, where Spanish is the official language. I have also suggested that back a few messages.
But
where does it end? Should signs in and around Hancock, Michigan (home to Finlandia College) be posted in English and Finnish? Or English and Finnish and Swedish?
Yes, those are rhetorical questions.Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2012, 08:53:33 AM
In these environments, it is very possible to be "successful" without knowledge of the English language. The town in the OP (New Brunswick, NJ): 45.5% speak Spanish; 31.2% speak Spanish, and English less than "very well"; 36.2% combined foreign-born population. While these numbers are lower than the two examples I gave above, they are still considerable. When nearly half of a community speaks Spanish, I question the idea that Spanish could not be the "language of success" for a resident.
I do not dispute your numbers at all - there's no reason to.
But in most of the United States, English predominates, and people coming here should be encouraged to learn the
de-
facto national language.
And please note that as the child of immigrants, I
despise the immigrant-bashing that more than a few politicians in the United States engage in, and that includes English-only laws.
Thinking billingual signs are overkill is not immigrant bashing. If I moved to Quebec, and demanded that signs be billingual, people would look at me like I have three heads, and Quebec has a larger English-speaking population (percentage wise) then the US Spanish-speaking population. Why are people who speak languages other than English special? I would say that asking for billingual signs is English-bashing, especially given that NOBODY caters to English-speaking immigrants elsewhere by giving them special concessions, so why should we give Spanish-speaking immigrants special concessions?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2012, 10:11:21 AM
Nogales probably ought to have bilingual signs because it is hard up against the border with Mexico, where Spanish is the official language. I have also suggested that back a few messages.
But where does it end? Should signs in and around Hancock, Michigan (home to Finlandia College) be posted in English and Finnish? Or English and Finnish and Swedish? Yes, those are rhetorical questions.
It may be a rhetorical question, but allow me to answer. All of Hougton County has fewer than 900 people who speak English less than "very well"–2.4% of the population. Mentioning it convinces me of nothing.
Saying "where does it end?" doesn't actually make a point either. You've said yourself that Nogales should have bilingual signs. So, it's apparent to me that you think there
are places where bilingual signage is a good idea. Not knowing exactly where to draw the line between Nogales and Hancock doesn't mean the line shouldn't be drawn
anywhere.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2012, 10:11:21 AM
I do not dispute your numbers at all - there's no reason to.
But in most of the United States, English predominates, and people coming here should be encouraged to learn the de-facto national language.
How many times can I say this: it's not the place of the DOT or local streets department to encourage people to do
anything. It's their place to maintain safe roadways. Whether you think immigrants should have to learn English or not is a moot point.
Quote from: deanej on September 19, 2012, 11:40:00 AM
Thinking billingual signs are overkill is not immigrant bashing.
I strongly agree.
Quote from: deanej on September 19, 2012, 11:40:00 AM
If I moved to Quebec, and demanded that signs be billingual, people would look at me like I have three heads, and Quebec has a larger English-speaking population (percentage wise) then the US Spanish-speaking population.
Excellent point. To a great extent, the signs in Quebec (as in the U.S. and other Canadian provinces) use icons anyway, so bilingual signs are not such a big deal. And I know a few words of French, so I can usually figure out what a sign means.
Quote from: deanej on September 19, 2012, 11:40:00 AM
Why are people who speak languages other than English special? I would say that asking for billingual signs is English-bashing, especially given that NOBODY caters to English-speaking immigrants elsewhere by giving them special concessions, so why should we give Spanish-speaking immigrants special concessions?
That's a very good point. In places that don't use the Latin alphabet (nations that speak Arabic, Hebrew, Mandarin or Cantonese Chinese and Japanese, for example), English is often the "alternate" language used, but I don't think it is used to favor English-speaking immigrants.
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2012, 02:49:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2012, 10:11:21 AM
Nogales probably ought to have bilingual signs because it is hard up against the border with Mexico, where Spanish is the official language. I have also suggested that back a few messages.
But where does it end? Should signs in and around Hancock, Michigan (home to Finlandia College) be posted in English and Finnish? Or English and Finnish and Swedish? Yes, those are rhetorical questions.
It may be a rhetorical question, but allow me to answer. All of Hougton County has fewer than 900 people who speak English less than "very well"–2.4% of the population. Mentioning it convinces me of nothing.
I am not trying to convince you - just making a point, that's all.
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2012, 02:49:45 PM
Saying "where does it end?" doesn't actually make a point either. You've said yourself that Nogales should have bilingual signs.
I disagree. I said (
emphasis added):
QuoteNogales probably ought to have bilingual signs because it is hard up against the border with Mexico, where Spanish is the official language.
Allow me to elaborate on what I meant by
probably. There
probably needs to be a standard set in the MUTCD (or a similar national-level policy document) for when bilingual signs are warranted (and
not arbitrary decisions by local elected officials, as was apparently the case in New Brunswick, N.J. -
or by right-wing radio talk show hosts). As I suggested before, just because they are appropriate in places like Nogales (never been there, but the place has been prominently featured on the
Border Wars series on the National Geographic Channel, so I have some idea what it looks like) or San Ysidro, California (I have been there), that does not make them appropriate in other parts of the U.S. (and in any case, I believe that bilingual signs should be subject to a warrants analysis).
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2012, 02:49:45 PM
So, it's apparent to me that you think there are places where bilingual signage is a good idea. Not knowing exactly where to draw the line between Nogales and Hancock doesn't mean the line shouldn't be drawn anywhere.
Please see above.
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2012, 02:49:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2012, 10:11:21 AM
I do not dispute your numbers at all - there's no reason to.
But in most of the United States, English predominates, and people coming here should be encouraged to learn the de-facto national language.
How many times can I say this: it's not the place of the DOT or local streets department to encourage people to do anything. It's their place to maintain safe roadways. Whether you think immigrants should have to learn English or not is a moot point.
Safe roadways means (in my opinion) using
international-standard icons (and
not words) as much as possible, so that someone who does not comprehend the local language still knows that there's a hazard of some sort. They've been doing this a lot longer in Europe than we have in the United States, probably because areas that are geographically close to each other can (and often do) speak different languages - in some cases, very different languages.
And speaking of international standards, right-wing radio talk show hosts and the highway network, I am
very much in favor of junking the British Imperial system of measurements, especially when it comes to speed and distance. Those can be (and sometimes are) a safety hazard for people coming to the United States from other nations.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2012, 04:03:56 PM
using international-standard icons (and not words) as much as possible
junking the British Imperial system of measurements, especially when it comes to speed and distance.
On these two points we are in agreement, though I should point out that the U.S. does not actually use imperial units, but rather U.S. customary units (which point, of course, is irrelevant since we're talking about miles and hours).
Symbols do a good job at bridging language barriers–insofar as the symbols are actually good ones. After all, a poor symbol is misunderstood by many, whereas a good phrase is only misunderstood by some.
All of this, however, side-steps the point that many on here have made: that SLOW DOWN is a useless sign from the beginning, no matter what language(s) it's posted in. I mean, did the Puerto Rican Whatever-It-Was really think the accidents were due to people not understanding the concept of a speed limit? Yeesh...
You know, when I posted this thread, I didn't particularly expect such an intriguing discussion/debate over immigration & the Speak English in US thing.
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2012, 04:31:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2012, 04:03:56 PM
using international-standard icons (and not words) as much as possible
junking the British Imperial system of measurements, especially when it comes to speed and distance.
On these two points we are in agreement, though I should point out that the U.S. does not actually use imperial units, but rather U.S. customary units (which point, of course, is irrelevant since we're talking about miles and hours).
Maybe I should have said an obsolete system of measurements descended from the time that the U.S. was part of the British Empire?
I know that an Imperial Gallon (formerly used in Canada) was larger than a U.S. Gallon (that right there might be reason enough to get rid of those measurements).
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2012, 04:31:35 PM
Symbols do a good job at bridging language barriers–insofar as the symbols are actually good ones. After all, a poor symbol is misunderstood by many, whereas a good phrase is only misunderstood by some.
That's where human factors engineering should be entering the discussion. What is a "good" symbol, and what is a "bad" symbol?
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2012, 04:31:35 PM
All of this, however, side-steps the point that many on here have made: that SLOW DOWN is a useless sign from the beginning, no matter what language(s) it's posted in. I mean, did the Puerto Rican Whatever-It-Was really think the accidents were due to people not understanding the concept of a speed limit? Yeesh...
Or
Reduce Speed, which was the subject of a thread not so long ago (I know, I started it) - as was pointed out by someone else, it was once in the MUTCD. Much better to post a reduced speed limit in a system of speed limits that most people can comprehend.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 19, 2012, 04:37:17 PM
an intriguing discussion/debate over immigration & the Speak English in US thing.
What? It's just talking point regurgitation.
I don't think any of what we've discussed is part of the talking points of any political party. This debate has nothing to do with illegal immigration, despite some people trying to claim that it is.
Quote from: deanej on September 20, 2012, 11:37:19 AM
I don't think any of what we've discussed is part of the talking points of any political party.
I can confidently say that my points of view on this subject would annoy elected officials from both major parties (and probably a few right-wing talk show hosts, too).
Quote from: deanej on September 20, 2012, 11:37:19 AM
This debate has nothing to do with illegal immigration, despite some people trying to claim that it is.
Agreed. I have my own
strong opinion on that subject - but I think immigration is beyond the scope of this thread.
Quote from: deanej on September 20, 2012, 11:37:19 AM
I don't think any of what we've discussed is part of the talking points of any political party.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 18, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
This is America. Learn English.
Sounds like a talking point to me.
Who cares?
It's still an interesting discussion that hasn't descended into a flame war.
Quote from: NE2 on September 20, 2012, 12:10:29 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 20, 2012, 11:37:19 AM
I don't think any of what we've discussed is part of the talking points of any political party.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 18, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
This is America. Learn English.
Sounds like a talking point to me.
It's interesting. You'd think that my opinions about
not regulating people's behavior (not discouraging foreign language) and about the perceived necessity of learning English being an issue that sorts itself out demographically without the need for
external intervention.....would appeal to
conservatives. But apparently not. I guess that's because conservative doesn't really mean conservative anymore–just xenophobic. So, yeah, chalk me up as one whose views will irk both the left and the right.
Quote from: kphoger on September 20, 2012, 01:52:37 PM
...conservative doesn't really mean conservative anymore–just xenophobic.
Please just stop with the conservative=xenophobe nonsense. I'm conservative and I have many conservative friends of all colors, creeds, etc., in various circles. Some of us work together, some of us play together, some of us worship together, some of us eat together (admittedly, that may be the best part). (I do have liberal friends but I'm just referring to my friends who are conservative.)
In fact, I don't know any conservatives (either fiscal or social conservatives) who are xenophobic. I mean, think about it. How could a recent immigrant who is conservative and Indian or Asian or African possibly be xenophobic? They'd have to be afraid of themselves, right?
I'm not discounting the possibility that you may personally know some xenophobic conservatives, but please don't cosmologize your own experience to include me and those I know.
Sorry to veer off into politics, and I
really don't mean to touch off the aforementioned flame war, but I'm tired of being tagged by people who don't know me and obviously don't know my friends.
Quote from: qguy on September 20, 2012, 02:23:42 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 20, 2012, 01:52:37 PM
...conservative doesn't really mean conservative anymore–just xenophobic.
Please just stop with the conservative=xenophobe nonsense. I'm conservative and I have many conservative friends of all colors, creeds, etc., in various circles. Some of us work together, some of us play together, some of us worship together, some of us eat together (admittedly, that may be the best part). (I do have liberal friends but I'm just referring to my friends who are conservative.)
In fact, I don't know any conservatives (either fiscal or social conservatives) who are xenophobic. I mean, think about it. How could a recent immigrant who is conservative and Indian or Asian or African possibly be xenophobic? They'd have to be afraid of themselves, right?
I'm not discounting the possibility that you may personally know some xenophobic conservatives, but please don't cosmologize your own experience to include me and those I know.
Sorry to veer off into politics, and I really don't mean to touch off the aforementioned flame war, but I'm tired of being tagged by people who don't know me and obviously don't know my friends.
Please accept my apology. My view
is probably slanted, since I grew up in a place that is both very Republican and very racist. And I agree that flame wars are bad.
So, why
do you think so many conservatives do not adopt a laissez faire approach to foreign langages in America?
Quote from: kphoger on September 20, 2012, 02:35:22 PMSo, why do you think so many conservatives do not adopt a laissez faire approach to foreign langages in America?
I'll step away from the roadway issue for a moment and address your question. A short question, and a lo-o-ong explanation, so apologies back at ya ahead-of-time.
[@ mod: Allow me some leeway, if you would. You know I don't load up on the political discussions.]
Contrary to how conservatives are portrayed by those with a different political agenda, they are generally very compassionate. But allow me to draw an analogy. And use generalizations. (Doesn't mean I think
everyone fits the following descriptions.) It's a lot like the friendliness of so-called northerners (especially those in the northeast metropolitan areas).
People from the south and midwest (and I know because I lived in a few places there) usually perceive northeners as cold and rude. But they're generally not. They're
reserved. They don't wear their friendliness on their sleeves. In fact, when there is a reason to break the ice, you often can't get them to shut up! I've experienced this many times (and have probably been guilty of it myself).
Conservatives (social, fiscal, you name it) are extemely compassionate. They advocate the things they do because they see those things as being beneficial to both individuals and society. Sometimes those things don't
appear on the surface to be as compassionate, but the conservative would argue it to be more compassionate in the results.
To use a hoary old cliché: It may
seem to be more compassionate to give a man a fish. It meets his immediate need (and it sure makes the giver feel good). But it's more compassionate to teach the man to fish. It's harder (for both the teacher and the student) so it doesn't appear on the surface to be very compassionate. (Actually, the conservative would probably say: give the man a fish right now to meet his immediate need and right away start teaching him to fish, but you get the idea. Nothing is quite so simple and every analogy breaks down eventually.)
Moreover, don't conflate conservatives with libertarians. A thorough-going libertarian would be completely laissez-faire about pretty much any issue. The battle cry of a libertarian might be "So long as it doesn't hurt anyone!" If a conservative thinks a policy or action results in someone being harmed, they would not be in favor of it, even if the policy that results in the negative outcome is the laissez-faire policy.
In reality, though, most conservatives I know have at least a bit of a libertarian streak, so they do tend to lean toward a laissez-faire attitude about things and only seek other solutions when they think it's absolutely necessary because of some greater harm they perceive.
I'm reluctant to offer specific examples because I think they would tend to be picked apart and the thread would probably devolve into a discussion of the issue I used as an example. And I've probably taken way too much space already in a political sideline. (Althought it does have bearing on the topic at hand.)
Conservatives don't want to see individuals or society harmed. "Sounds like liberals," you might think. Perhaps, but part of the point is that conservatives are generally motivated by compassion (and genuine, well-thought-out ideas about how to result in the most benefit for the most people), despite attempts by the other side of the political spectrum to paint them as mean-spirited or stupid.
That's why they don't always reach for the laissez-faire option.
Quote from: qguy on September 20, 2012, 04:12:55 PM
explanation
That's why they don't always reach for the laissez-faire option.
I guess I commit the error of thinking that conservatives always lean toward small government. The term 'conservative' means so many different things, that I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to look deeper.
OK, let's steer back away from politics, before we start arguing how liberals and conservatives actually feel. Trust me, liberals and conservatives may be compassionate, but Democrats and Republicans sure as hell aren't.