New Brunswick (NJ) Gets Money for Bilingual Road Signs

[kphoger]

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.

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.

[cpzilliacus]

Thinking billingual signs are overkill is not immigrant bashing.

I strongly agree.

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.

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

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):

Nogales 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).

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.

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.

[kphoger]

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...

[Roadgeek Adam]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

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?

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.

[NE2]

an intriguing discussion/debate over immigration & the Speak English in US thing.

What? It's just talking point regurgitation.

[vdeane]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

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.

[NE2]

I don't think any of what we've discussed is part of the talking points of any political party.

This is America. Learn English.

Sounds like a talking point to me.

[deathtopumpkins]

Who cares?

It's still an interesting discussion that hasn't descended into a flame war.

[kphoger]

I don't think any of what we've discussed is part of the talking points of any political party.

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.

[qguy]

...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.

[kphoger]

...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?

[qguy]

So, 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.

[kphoger]

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.

[Alps]

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.