Mandating a national language for the USA wouldn't actually accomplish much.
By
Mark J
on June 27, 2007
I suppose I could see having "working" languages for government. That would clear up the need to publish gov. papers in every language under the sun.
Agreed
22
4
84.6% 15.4%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
This claim was inspired by
Claims inspired by this one
Similar claims
- 16-8 It's reasonable to expect someone who wants to become a citizen of a country to have a reasonable facility in at least one of its official languages.
- 22-0 It's unreasonable to mandate a national language for the sole purpose of institutionalizing racism.
- 83-0 "Country" and "Language" should always be seperate preferences on websites.
- 13-10 There is not one Christian nation.
- 7-2 I hope Jyte users refrain from country grammar.
Discussion (5)
They already require things like that, though; a front-office person is required to speak in English, IIRC [e.g. a person that will deal with customers directly].
I changed my vote from agree because I believe it would accomplish something - it would reveal, in all its stark glory, the hypocrisy of the slogan that the United States teaches to all its children, specifically that of the "melting pot."
Of course, one could argue that this hypocrisy has already been revealed to any reasonably astute observer.
It wouldn't accomplish much good, anyway.
Dammit IE, you're dead on, and beat me to the punch. Now I wish I hadn't voted. *sigh*. I'm willing to go on record as stating that it would do a considerable amount of harm.
Claims inspired by this comment
Mandating an official national language for the USA wouldn't actually accomplish much good, if any.me too! gar!
ObPedantry: i believe that "national language" and "official langauge" are jargon terms in this debate and have particular meanings of which the author of this claim was apparently unaware. If I udnerstand correctly, English already is the "national language" of the U.S., and the debate is over whether to make that "official".