---

If they had made that kind of law in the 19th century and early 20th there would be very few Poles, Russians, Germans and Italians in the US. Hey I wonder if all you ancestors would have made it.

---

nope

i my family would be in south america and europe....

-------
The world is only as sweet as you make it and only as terrible as you see it

---

Quote: from snowcone200 at 4:01 pm on May 10, 2008

---

You can live in America and not speak english. Seeing as spanish is the 2nd language her mostly.

---

 
ditto

there are a lot of other languages in the united states

and english is just one of the many
it is not dominant

---

It just happens to be the language that all of our founding documents, and legislative documents were written in.

Keep trying to defend the scum that comes here and refuses to learn the language of the land.

-------
whoisabs i'm not sure
Guess who's back?

---

In Rome do as the romans do..

---

I SO agree with that.  I'm not American, but I can understand your frustration cos that sort of thing has happened to me before.

The European colonisers never arrived in the Americas as immigrants wishing to partake in the bounty of Native Indian civilisation. They arrived to establish their own civilisation on the land which was often empty. So the above analogy is bunk. If the colonisers had wanted to exist within Indian civilisation, then I'm willing to bet that they would have needed to know whatever jabber the Indians spoke.

If people want to move to a country without assimilating, and without adopting the local customs, laws and language, they might as well just cut the bullshit and declare war. For fucks sake, at least have the balls to be open about your intentions, instead of trying to sleaze your way in and then try to covertly create your own little 'New China' or 'New Mexico' in your adopted homeland.

Yeah, that's right, you fuckers. Us whites do notice what you're up to. The problem is that most of us are too politically correct to say anything. But don't worry, eventually you will feel the sting. New China or New Mexico will be just as shitty and lame as old China/Mexico.

---

If they had made that kind of law in the 19th century and early 20th there would be very few Poles, Russians, Germans and Italians in the US. Hey I wonder if all you ancestors would have made it.

---

Upon moving to English speaking countries, my ancestors learnt the native language, often from scratch. That includes my mother, who arrived in Australia at the age of twelve.

I mean, what the hell? Do you mean to tell me that poor baby spics and chinks can't learn English? Are they retarded?

---

The European colonisers never arrived in the Americas as immigrants wishing to partake in the bounty of Native Indian civilisation. They arrived to establish their own civilisation on the land which was often empty. So the above analogy is bunk. If the colonisers had wanted to exist within Indian civilisation, then I'm willing to bet that they would have needed to know whatever jabber the Indians spoke.

If people want to move to a country without assimilating, and without adopting the local customs, laws and language, they might as well just cut the bullshit and declare war. For fucks sake, at least have the balls to be open about your intentions, instead of trying to sleaze your way in and then try to covertly create your own little 'New China' or 'New Mexico' in your adopted homeland.

Yeah, that's right, you fuckers. Us whites do notice what you're up to. The problem is that most of us are too politically correct to say anything. But don't worry, eventually you will feel the sting. New China or New Mexico will be just as shitty and lame as old China/Mexico.

---

I can't believe you spent so much time writing that absolute bullshit. Lulz.

-------
I probably don't even mean it.
---
queer Native mixed pride

---

Your stupid, English isnt even the offical language of the US. If you knew anything about your country you would know that the US has no offical language. And i got a radical ideal, How about Americans do like the rest of the world and learn atleast one forigen language. Every country on eart with exception of Native English speaking ones teach forigen languages in school. And it is not uncommon for a 7th grader in Europe or Asia to speak 2-4 languages. And in the US they dont learn a language, when they do learn one at school they take it for like 1-4 years. In Europe you take that language for atleast 5 or 6 years.

---

Most businesses require you to speak english or be bilingual. Obviously for good reasons.

---

Quote: from mountain hare at 6:23 am on May 12, 2008

---

 The European colonisers never arrived in the Americas as immigrants wishing to partake in the bounty of Native Indian civilisation. They arrived to establish their own civilisation on the land which was often empty. So the above analogy is bunk. If the colonisers had wanted to exist within Indian civilisation, then I'm willing to bet that they would have needed to know whatever jabber the Indians spoke.  

 If people want to move to a country without assimilating, and without adopting the local customs, laws and language, they might as well just cut the bullshit and declare war. For fucks sake, at least have the balls to be open about your intentions, instead of trying to sleaze your way in and then try to covertly create your own little 'New China' or 'New Mexico' in your adopted homeland.  

 Yeah, that's right, you fuckers. Us whites do notice what you're up to. The problem is that most of us are too politically correct to say anything. But don't worry, eventually you will feel the sting. New China or New Mexico will be just as shitty and lame as old China/Mexico.

---

I can't believe you spent so much time writing that absolute bullshit. Lulz.

---

I always find it tragic when such a beautiful girl is so stupid.  

---

I can't believe you spent so much time writing that absolute bullshit. Lulz.

---

He does have a great point, though.  The European colonizers did not come to the Americas and rely on any kind of welfare from the Native Americans.  They relied on trade with them, no doubt, but that was more of a necessity for survival rather than something which drew European colonizers to the Americas.  Thus the European colonizers never really relied on the Native Americans in the way many immigrants today rely on the United States, making the analogy a very poor one.

---

Quote: from snowfish at 8:13 am on May 12, 2008

---

I can't believe you spent so much time writing that absolute bullshit. Lulz.

---

 
He does have a great point, though.  The European colonizers did not come to the Americas and rely on any kind of welfare from the Native Americans.  They relied on trade with them, no doubt, but that was more of a necessity for survival rather than something which drew European colonizers to the Americas.  Thus the European colonizers never really relied on the Native Americans in the way many immigrants today rely on the United States, making the analogy a very poor one.

---

have you never studied the way that european colonizers were eating one another and dying of starvation until some indians came around and showed them how to eat?

furthermore the land wasn't 'often empty' as much as you'd like to think, and they were taking on the bounty of indian civilization, they just never gave credit for it. The American constitution is influenced by democratic native governments. Or on a more physical basis, look at 'settlers' who came to Eastern Washington for the fertile land. They couldn't believe how well taken care of it was, not realizing that it had been carefully farmed for hundreds of years by indians.

further than THAT is the 'new mexico' point. Considering that the American government moved the border, incorporating most of California and other south western states, many people who grew up speaking spanish in mexico died in the same towns that were then 'American' without ever immigrating and wanting to join in the U.S.

Even further than THAT the U.S. has no official language. Many countries do, and they are usually instated to suppress minorities and boost nationalism. Look at Canada's push around WWI against French, the Welsh language suppression, the Maori language suppression, or many others.

I mean, I could go on, and on, and on about all of the problems in this bullshit but I don't really think it would convince people who aren't willing to open their eyes or open a book.

-------
I probably don't even mean it.
---
queer Native mixed pride

---

have you never studied the way that european colonizers were eating one another and dying of starvation until some indians came around and showed them how to eat?

---

Of course.  These same Native Americans even taught the settlers how to grow corn and other American crops.

But you must realize that this kind of support cannot be counted upon.  European colonizers did not come to America expecting Native Americans to cater to their needs.  Sure, they'd expect some humanity to be shown, as they would from anybody, but there is a key difference here.

---

furthermore the land wasn't 'often empty' as much as you'd like to think, and they were taking on the bounty of indian civilization, they just never gave credit for it.

---

They took land from the Native Americans and they forced many natives away onto reservations or just further west.  They clearly took the bounty of the Native Americans, but they did it on their own accord.  They did not find loopholes in whatever Native American society they encountered and try to leech off of it.  They outright stole from them.  This is the point Mountain Hare was making - the fact that the European colonizers weren't trying to hide what they were taking from the Native Americans.

---

The American constitution is influenced by democratic native governments. Or on a more physical basis, look at 'settlers' who came to Eastern Washington for the fertile land. They couldn't believe how well taken care of it was, not realizing that it had been carefully farmed for hundreds of years by indians.

---

Remember that the constitution was influenced by many things, from England's Magna Carta, to many Enlightenment philosophers, to the Iroquois nation.  And also remember that the colonizers simply took the land from the Native Americans.  They didn't come to the Americas pretending to be apart of the Native American civilization and reaping the benefits of it through silly loopholes.  Big difference.

---

further than THAT is the 'new mexico' point. Considering that the American government moved the border, incorporating most of California and other south western states, many people who grew up speaking spanish in mexico died in the same towns that were then 'American' without ever immigrating and wanting to join in the U.S.

---

It's largely irrelevent today as, after many generations, families of immigrants do eventually assimilate.  Whatever connections people have to these families is blurred by 160 years of being a part of the United States.

The fear today is that the immigration from Mexico is coming at such a scale that successive generations won't assimilate; that they'll retain their identity because their community will be large enough to not need to interact with the rest of the American community.

---

Even further than THAT the U.S. has no official language.

---

That's not to say that the US does not have a lingua franca and that the fact this lingua franca exists is well known by anybody who knows anything about the US.  By choosing to ignore this, they are choosing to not interact with the rest of the American people, whether it's to stubbornly retain their ethnic identity or just simply because they don't care to be "American."

---

Many countries do, and they are usually instated to suppress minorities and boost nationalism. Look at Canada's push around WWI against French, the Welsh language suppression, the Maori language suppression, or many others.

---

I don't disagree with you here.  I think it's everybody's right to speak whatever they wish, but they should not expect society to cater to their needs if they cannot communicate with society using the lingua franca.  

---

I mean, I could go on, and on, and on about all of the problems in this bullshit but I don't really think it would convince people who aren't willing to open their eyes or open a book.

---

Don't be so negative.  You don't change anybody mind on a subject with that sort of mindset.

---

further than THAT is the 'new mexico' point. Considering that the American government moved the border, incorporating most of California and other south western states, many people who grew up speaking spanish in mexico died in the same towns that were then 'American' without ever immigrating and wanting to join in the U.S.

---

Hey stupid ass, keep pretending that the territory that the US took away from Mexico in the war was very populated.  You are attempting to make it sound as if the people living there before/during/after the war were at similar population levels to what they are today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War#Background A map of Mexico, 1835-1846.

I mean just look at the size of the administrative districts in Mexico at the time.  Most of northern Mexico, especially northwestern Mexico was seen as useless crap to the Mexican government that was busy looting the natural resources in the central and southern parts of Mexico.  Of course I know more about Texas specifically, though I'm sure they had similar policies in the rest of northern Mexico, and how the government was forcing individuals into living in the areas since the only people living there on their own, if you could call it that, were missionaries trying to spread the Catholic faith to the indios.

The number of native spanish speakers in the usa in 1850 were pretty low, thus trying to justify the imposition of spanish on the nation today on the basis of a tiny minority from then is a pretty faulty argument.

-------
whoisabs i'm not sure
Guess who's back?