next »

[daurousseau]

Dear Colleagues,

Please understand that comments directed to particular posts are not ad hominem arguments. I don't know know who you are, and don't care. So I can't be knocking you on the basis of who you are. Your posts can be knocked on the basis of what they say, and, since we are conversing in natural langauge, seem to imply.

To the advocates of compromise, consensus and such, I have this to say: once someone has devised a compromise, how do you implement it?  It happens all the time in labor relations; ending a strike with a signed contract is a paradigm case of compromise. Now, how do you implement the compromise. You vote on it (from the labor side), or: the union shoves it down your throat. Is it your position that only the compromise is important, not who picks it?

To those who believe that democracy is impossible to implement: Please stop for a minute and make sure that a) you have experimental proof and b) that you understand how to set up the experiment. While all democracy is a good thing, it always runs into a brick wall when economic power is in question. Because the economic is undemocratic through and through. Boss rules, you obey. Therefore, any complete democracy will have to subordinate the broad-scale economic decisions to political decision by the vote. Wouldn't you like to be able to vote on how much of the economy is spent on the military? How much is consumed by our generation and how much set aside for the future? Society has discretionary income. How it's spent is decided either by the majority or by some set of minorities. It really is that simple.

[mandywoetzel]

I have done much reading recently on the topic, and I thought I'd contribute the following to this conversation.

1. I thought bilingualism in this context meant being fluent in English and another language. I also thought there has been sufficient evidence ranging from neurological benefits to social networking to indicate that bilingual children in various communities do in fact do better academically and professionally, and bilingualism was indeed beneficial to the society at large in today's global economy.

2. By contrast, OP and other critiques of this notion appear to be talking about
bilingualism as though non-English monolingualism is being promoted. I don't think anyone is promoting this. In other words, English--whether we call it the official language or not--would always be present, and acquisition of another language is being promoted.

At least this is my understanding.