美国总统大选前的最后一场辩论西部时间今晚7点半结束了。不要说具体的主张，光从态度来看，麦肯的咄咄逼人、做作的微笑显得底气不足而傲慢有加，奥巴马把他的以理服人的冷静风格发挥得游刃有余，我特别佩服他能有勇气说”In the political campaign, we are fighting with the opponent but we shall not categorize the opponent as bad people, which is a culture long time in Washington.” 我看人往往是看他的批判性思维，因此可能片面罢----即使他是一个政治家，也是一个挟带几许锋芒的、给70年来财政状况从未如此惨不忍睹，风声鹤鸣中的美国能带来一丝希望的政治家了。时事造英雄，谁将主沉浮？在人心惶惶时谁能表现得胸有成竹，而又能以国计民生、特别是孩子有没钱上大学、工作族有没有健康保险这样的话打动民心，谁就能赢，所以我觉得结局似乎已略见分晓。
此为应景话。我实际要记录的是今天在种族与族群关系课上，我们的第一场辩论。明天还有一个题。
这个课向来有许多棘手的议题，没有唯一的答案，只有无穷的争论，在一个白人为主的地方上这个课，更是有意想不到的困难之处。我决定这学期要进行几次正规些的辩论，今天的题目是“English only will speed up the assimilation process”，正方为“yes”，其题目直接来自课本, 反方的题目是“no，English only will not speed up the assimilation process”，是我把课本上的“bilingualism should be encouraged ”改成这个了，为了更利于立场鲜明的辩论。
我们学习了“同化与多元主义”一章（assimilation and pluralism)，学生们已经具备了一些概念、理论可以用来形成各自的观点了。这个辩论正方的理论参考主要是同化理论，对同化是持非常正面的态度，同化的一个重要特征是语言上学习主流社会、确切地说是学习统治群体的语言，即英语，有忘掉自己母语为好的含义；而反方的理论依据是反对一边倒的同化，指出貌似好听的同化实际是屈服于盎格鲁-萨克森人的文化，称为Anglo-conformity, or called “Americanization”, 认为pluralism，即多元主义，保持各民族文化特性与民主制度并行不悖，应该提倡，认为英语唯一反而会破坏移民融入主流社会。
Other countries have learned English as their secondary language in order to accommodate those in American when coming over to the US. Why then is the United States not willing to accommodate them and learn their languages?”
Most countries do not speak English as their first language, and America part of the global economy. A language barrier would be in effect solely due to English being the only language spoken by the American businesses, so wouldn’t the English only policy hinder the assimilation process on a more global level?
Evidence suggests that learning languages at a young age not only expedites the language learning process but has a proven correlation to greater academic success. What benefit will be derived form enforcing monolingual policies? And more specifically, in what ways would America be harmed by expanding our linguistic repertoire?
The Native Americans (Indians) have lived here since the beginning and Americans have not currently learned the Native American language. If the point is that it is the duty of the people immigrating to learn the language of the land, how would you address Americans not having done so?
正方也不示弱，他们经过讨论后指出他们说的英语唯一是在工作场合用英语作为官方唯一语言，但在家则不一定，（显然有偷换概念，但也属可以理解了）还有反问“don’t you think English only will help the entity of U.S.?” 他们还在昨天进行25人的调查，说75% 的人认为应该在工作场所English only，60%的人赞成English only will be good（我没来得及问他们如何抽样的，明天问）。
actually i do not agree with assimilation, I agree with preservation and embracement. with assimilation, you lose your individuality, however, when you do embrace what is a challenge, you can also learn to preserve a culture, your culture, as well.
actually, I do think star trek would be a very good example here, the federation and the borg, ha ha, yes, im the dork, :P
you can not stop evolution as us the human race moves forward in the history of nature. therefore, learning how to perserve our culture and embrace the foreign culture that is invading our aboriginal culture would be a much more viable option.
Hi, U, I am also in a hurry, so just help to read it: Thank you very much for your wonderful input in this debate topic. I agree some of them, especially about the Native American language.(but if we are part of Native, I think the tone will be different). However, the purpose of this debate is to critically examine the positive functions and the drawbacks of assimilation, as I have indicated in this article, assimilation could be coined as coercive "Anglo-Conformity" process, and we need to understand the history of America also is a history of minority groups. I can clearly see you are on the side of Yes assimilation!, since you defend it quite well. But from a critical sociological perspective, we can see the dwonside of the assimilation. And the topic is"Assimilation will/or will not speed up assimilation", your argument seems leaning more toward to "is English Only justified?" , the focus has some difference here.
Regarding to plastic surgery, it is not a comparable analogy to learning second language, simply because plastic surgery has negative effect on body and health, and learning language is to enrich a person's life and intelligence. I don't think it is harmful to people. Only the coercive learning is harmful.
For French being the official language, I check the Wikepedia, Europe Union has 23 official languages, French is one among them. Quote:"The European Union at present has a policy of requiring every document to be translated into the official language of every member. These are: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish. Some must also be translated into Gaelic, the official language of Ireland. "
Thanks again for your active participation in this topic. :)
a. Other countries have learned English as their secondary language in order to accommodate those in American when coming over to the US. Why then is the United States not willing to accommodate them and learn their languages?”
I personally do not believe that no one is to accommodate them by not learning their language. However, they choose to come to a country where they understand and know that English is the first and dominate language that is being used in this country. And we are also aware many immigrants who came to this country much earlier than the ones who do come now have learned English, so would it fair to them by urging US to learn their languages instead ?
b. Most countries do not speak English as their first language, and America part of the global economy. A language barrier would be in effect solely due to English being the only language spoken by the American businesses, so wouldn’t the English only policy hinder the assimilation process on a more global level?
In Europe, although France is not the center of its economy, however, French is the official language in Europe as well as in the UN. Can anyone justify with that ?
c. Evidence suggests that learning languages at a young age not only expedites the language learning process but has a proven correlation to greater academic success. What benefit will be derived form enforcing monolingual policies? And more specifically, in what ways would America be harmed by expanding our linguistic repertoire?
So does proven that learning a musical instrument can also help to achieve academic success. There is no significant benefits, however, if the US loses its official language, it will also lose its official significance. US is an immigrant country, there is no perfect way to accommodate everyone’s needs, and at the same time to try to be fair and just. It will in many ways harm the identity of many American Citizens, non-immigrated and immigrated alike. Expanding linguistic repertoire on a study bases can be very fruitful, however, on the culture aspect, it is very harmful.
Example, everyone wants to look pretty, and we all know there is nothing wrong with the desire of wanting to be presentable, however, this triggers the popularity of plastic surgeries on many levels. Can you honestly define that as not harmful to humanity and culture ?
d. The Native Americans (Indians) have lived here since the beginning and Americans have not currently learned the Native American language. If the point is that it is the duty of the people immigrating to learn the language of the land, how would you address Americans not having done so?
Sure we’ve all made mistakes in the past, and that is the part of being human. Whatever happened in history is history and I do agree that we do have to learn from them. However, at this point on, the problem with native American culture and languages are way past and beyond of learning it or not, it is a matter of preservation.
Native American languages are based on tribes. The most populated at where I am at are the Navahos. They do have a speak language, however, they do not have a writing language. They might’ve had at some point in history, but it hasn’t been preserved enough, however, if you look at Latin, it was very popular back mid-century, however, it is also labeled a dead language today as well.
嘻嘻，那句话 In the political campaign, we are fighting with the opponent but we shall not categorize the opponent as bad people, which is a culture long time in Washington.”
