- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48,281
- Reaction score
- 25,273
- Location
- Western NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I don't know what the big deal is. That said my favorite patriotic song is This Land is Your Land so maybe I don't have the emotional investment in America the Beautiful to get upset when someone sings it in any other language than American.
I think everyone should learn English in this country as its by far the dominate language. However, we have no American culture. Set aside immigrants, and there are still vast cultural differences between different areas in this country. If anything, what defines American culture is diversity.
To an extent I can agree, but I also disagree. While it is understandably desirable to wish the hegemonic group to maintain dominance in all areas, including language, I feel that there is some short-sightedness going on too. For instance, if and/or when english does not become the dominant primary language, I would want the institutions, mythology, etc of the United States to be able to thrive without it. After all, although our language is dominantly english, we Americans pride ourselves on being based on a set number of ideas, rather than religion, ethnicity, and so forth. As the Coke ad does not diverge from the American ideological foundations (and instead seems to prop it up), I mostly say that this is another piece of good nationalism. I wouldn't wish this "Empire of Liberty" to be so totally reliant upon a language that it falls apart when it is no longer the most spoken. I'd rather it adopt a language as it needs to (although english is hardly going away, it's the most common language of international commerce-which is also a testament to our empire).
I understand what they were going for, but the concept still made me vaguely uncomfortable.
If a nation's citizens need one thing in common in order to function effectively, it tends to be a language they can all speak and mutually understand. Tolerance for multiculturalism is all well and good, but it cannot be a society's primary objective in and of itself.
It simply doesn't lead anywhere productive.
I was confused for a moment when I read this post, then I realized it was some straw man which explains why it has no connection whatsoever to my post.
Anyway, I didn't say anything you suggested I said.
I think everyone in this country should be able to speak English, English should be taught in schools, English should be the official language of our government (that's not to say government products cannot be offered in other languages), but do need to learn how to speak and use English to become productive members of society. Multiculturalism is fantastic and you have have every freedom there is to belong to whatever culture you want to, but pragmatism makes it pretty clear that a society needs a basis of language in order to function.
I also think that everyone has the freedom under the 1st amendment to speak whatever they language they want,
to learn whatever language they want,
to speak a foreign tongue in their homes,
their communities if they wish,
to use it as their primary tongue if they wish.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of English speech.
The notion that you can't be an American unless you speak English, and ONLY English, is xenophobic, racist, and goes against the spirit of the Constitution.
Exactly why not?
The commercial was not making the suggestion that we abandon the core principles that this country promises to represent and serve. It's reminding us what those fundamental promises are. That people no matter what their faith or ethnicity are welcome here and will be provided equal opportunity and be judged by their deeds not their color or their faith or their language.
It is also not making the suggestion that we abandon english as our primary language, it has nothing to do with the language we speak or teach. It is about the diversity that makes us strong and makes America unique.
No, I was agreeing with you. If you think its absurd, stop saying things like it.
Oh.
What does the first amendment have to do with anything if there are no laws being proposed that mandates English be spoken?
Racist!
There it is.
Of course. No one has proposed otherwise.
No one has proposed otherwise.
No one has proposed otherwise.
No one has proposed otherwise.
No one has proposed otherwise.
No one has implied such.
And the notion that you must have a big toe shorter than the middle toe in order to be a pizza man is ridiculous and goes against the spirit of common sense.
Fortunately, no one has implied such and therefore we should be okay and don't really need to bring it up until such a thing is proposed.
Exactly why not?
Every country has a culture. I'm tired of the "America has no culture" meme. Of course we do. We just don't notice it because it seems arbitrary to us.
One example of an aspect of America's culture is Antiquarianism. We like history, and we like to preserve history for ourselves and future generations. We have buildings all over the country that are preserved to remember the past. 9/11 is a good example as well, as many were concerned with how we were going to honor those lost at the site. Not everyone does this. Another example is our admiration of freedoms such as freedom of speech, which isn't shared in a lot of places. Of course, we also appreciate people sharing their cultures with us, but that doesn't mean we don't have our own.
Multiculturalism isn't achievable. Respecting others cultures who want to keep their traditions and values within our borders, while understanding the importance of mutually subscribing to common traditions and values, which are imperative for a nation such as our to be cohesive and strong for the good of our nation...is how it really works best.
Multiculturalism creates a lot of minority groups who ultimately vie for power...which in the process divide our common interests as a nation.
And to be clear...none of the above is in anyway in conflict with the idea of diversity. Diversity is how America came into its own. But those within the diversity recognized the need for shared common values, traditions and beliefs so that we would always come together for the general welfare of the whole.
Just my 2 cents.
Sunnis, Kurds, and Shia.
Bosnian Muslims and Serbian Christians.
Tutsis and Hutus.
Making too much of a point of playing up ethnic distinctions within national populations simply doesn't lead to anything productive. People come to relate more to their specific group than they do the national body as a whole.
We already see shades of this in our society now with incidents like the Trayvon Martin shooting.
The last thing we need to do is encourage further differentiation. Whether by design or not, that is exactly what the coke ad in question does.
Sunnis, Kurds, and Shia.
Bosnian Muslims and Serbian Christians.
Tutsis and Hutus.
Making too much of a point of playing up ethnic distinctions within national populations simply doesn't lead to anything productive. People come to relate more to their specific group than they do the national body as a whole.
We already see shades of this in our society now with incidents like the Trayvon Martin shooting.
The last thing we need to do is encourage further differentiation. Whether by design or not, that is exactly what the coke ad in question does.
I ****ing hate it. :2mad:
Take it back to North Korea, commie. :2razz:
In terms of commercials it was one of the better ones, although that isn't saying much because most of them were about as terrible as the actual game, but I didn't see anything really wrong with the commercial.
I thought I was paraphrasing the Constitution, apparently I saying something Orwellian. How disconnected are you?
Man, if some people are getting butthurt about THIS ad, I'd hate to think what the reactions would be to the banned anti-Redskins ad...
WASHINGTON—Following an outpouring of criticism from across the country, the Washington Redskins announced Wednesday that they are officially changing the team’s name to the D.C. Redskins. “We’ve heard the concerns of many people who have been hurt or offended by the team’s previous name, and I’m happy to say we’ve now rectified the situation once and for all,” said franchise owner Dan Snyder, adding that “Washington Redskins” will be replaced with “D.C. Redskins” on all team logos, uniforms, and apparel. “It was a difficult decision—and one that, frankly, I’m a little embarrassed took me so long to make. So hopefully we can now put this issue to bed and start cheering on our D.C. Redskins.” In light of Snyder’s decision, Cleveland Indians owner Larry Dolan told reporters he will change the feather in Chief Wahoo’s headdress from red to a “more appropriate” shade of red.
It was one of the Super Bowl ads:
I don't think they are the ones that make the distinction or separate themselves. I believe that is imposed on them by people who think that unless you look and act like me you can't belong to my club. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging and retaining the parts of your individual culture that you are proud of, ours is not better then theirs.
You are describing tribalism with that. Moreover, getting upset over an ad like this that most people would not give a second thought to is an example of tribalism on your part.
Social conservatives tend to have an authoritarian tendency to want others to conform to the culture and beliefs of their tribe.
I don't like it because it was written by a communist sympathizer, I like it because I think of the United States as a land more than anything else. I am sure others see it differently.
This is our tribe's land. Why on earth wouldn't we expect them to conform to our standards? :lol:
Surely, you agree that a single, more or less unified, tribe is better than a loose confederation of different tribes jealously vying against one another for power and privilege?
The immigrants of the 19th Century faced far more discrimination and prejudice than any today. They assimilated just fine, precisely because they didn't really have any other choice.
Today's culture, by way of contrast, encourages "multiculturalism" instead. As a consequence of that, many minority groups are opting not to assimilate, but rather remain distinct from the main body of our society.
As I have already stated, this is problematic for a variety of reasons; most of which centering around the fact that it leads individuals to identify more with their ethnicity than the nation or culture of the nation as a whole.
This is our tribe's land. Why on earth wouldn't we expect them to conform to our standards if they want to live here? :lol:
Surely, you agree that a single, more or less unified, tribe is better than a loose confederation of different tribes jealously vying against one another for power and privilege?
You're not serious. Are you?
I'm glad you aren't implying it, and I never said you were, now can you cut down on the sarcasm or is this going to get even dumber than it already is?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?