forodeespanol.com

1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 14

John Dean:

[nq:2]The Americans and British have a long history of living ... they are well-surrounded by other English speakers, they remain monolingual.[/nq]
[nq:1]If they remain and have children, though, the children become fluent in the local language.[/nq]
Don't kid yourself. There's a long tradition in the British Foreign Service (and, I suspect, other Diplomatic services and other professions) of sending the kids 'home' to boarding school. Some of our most seriously repressed celebrities have travelled that route. Kipling was one of many sent back to England from India at the age of 5, not returning until he was 17. The British Civil Service still pays a special allowance to Government officers serving abroad to help them pay boarding school fees back home.
Plus the Brits (and I would guess other nations) have founded and run schools abroad that teach the UK curriculum in English so that the children of Government officials, British military personnel and others so-minded don't have to adapt to local educational methods. eg http://www.cobisec.org/ibis.htm , http://www.cobisec.org/bbs.htm Hell, there's a list of Brit Forces schools here
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/index.cfm?fuseaction=sce

A friend of ours who had qualified and worked as a teacher in the UK for several years went over to Germany to teach at such a school. Home from home.
And foreign families often live in some kind of enclave, whether it be family housing in the context of a military barracks or simply an area popular with families of a certain nationality. Which was handy in the Boxer rebellion.

John Dean
Oxford

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Mxsmanic:

[nq:1]You are stating this a generality?[/nq]
Yes.
[nq:1]"Most" of the children become fluent in the local language?[/nq]
Yes, if they attend school or are otherwise exposed to the national language. School is a key vector.
[nq:1]Whereever would you get that? It's entirely possible, but hardly the norm.[/nq]
For immigrants, it's the norm. The immigrants' children attend school, and once they do, they are exposed to the national language, which they learn. Each generation is thus more and more assimilated with the locals. The third native-born generation is usually completely "localized."
[nq:1]The period of time is irrelevant. It's the insularity of the community that is the issue.[/nq]
The period of time is a big factor. Once you start raising children in the new country, assimilation begins. The original immigrants can hold out for a lifetime, but the new country will be the native home of their children, who will see no reason to continue the isolation and many reasons to assimilate.

Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Mxsmanic:

[nq:1]The Puerto Ricans don't have to leave.[/nq]
I didn't say anything about obligation.

Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Mxsmanic:

[nq:1]Don't kid yourself. There's a long tradition in the British Foreign Service (and, I suspect, other Diplomatic services and other professions) of sending the kids 'home' to boarding school.[/nq]
The British have been crippling the social and emotional development of their children with boarding schools since time immemorial, it seems. Most nationalities don't make this mistake, however.
[nq:1]Some of our most seriously repressed celebrities have travelled that route. Kipling was one of many sent back to England from India at the age of 5, not returning until he was 17.[/nq]
I've always been amazed by the practice. Apparently the British don't love their children, since they are eager to send them far away for as long a period as possible. It explains what people euphemistically call "British reserve"; more like British trauma, I'd say.
[nq:1]Plus the Brits (and I would guess other nations) have founded and run schools abroad that teach the UK curriculum in English so that the children of Government officials, British military personnel and others so-minded don't have to adapt to local educational methods.[/nq]
That's very different, though, since it's extremely difficult to escape the local environment, especially over multiple generations. And as I've said, the British seem to be atypically insular.
[nq:1]And foreign families often live in some kind of enclave, whether it be family housing in the context of a military barracks or simply an area popular with families of a certain nationality.[/nq]
Immigrants and their children may. But as generations pass, children move out into the larger culture. Children born in a country feel no special ties to other, faraway countries and are much more willing and able to adopt local culture. The isolation that their parents might prefer will seem constraining to them (and it is).

Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Mxsmanic:

[nq:1]I think that spanish should be mandatory in public schools, I still can't get over the fact that most americans are monolinguals?, why?,[/nq]
There are arguments for mandatory study of a second or third language, but I don't think that Spanish should be forced upon students as the mandatory choice. Very large areas of the U.S. have no use for Spanish at all, so they may as well learn other languages.
[nq:1]In my experience, knowing more than one language had enabled me to be a better person and more understanding about others.[/nq]
A better person? That is perhaps a bit generous. But learning languages does tend to broaden one's outlook a bit, although the British have specialized in "learning" languages without absorbing any culture and without even acquiring any practical proficiency in the languages.
[nq:1]I really can't see why spanish is not taught in primary schools along with english?[/nq]
Why should it be?
[nq:1]do people hate it so much, or do they think by learning it they'll end up by home depot waiting to be picked up??!!, where does the problem lie?, i.e. why "ENGLISH ONLY!??".[/nq]
They realize that the U.S. is essentially a monolingual English society, and Spanish is of little use in much of the country. Learning a second language might be intellectually stimulating, but there's no clear reason why it must be Spanish. Many Americans will never encounter foreign languages unless they travel, and those who travel often travel to places where Spanish is not the local language.

Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Tony Cooper:

I know how reluctant you are to post details - or even generalities - about your own nationality, location, and experience, but - Lordy - do you come up with some off-the-wall stuff.
In many countries the children of diplomats and foreign workers are schooled in private schools and not in the local school system. It's been snipped, but part of this discussion was about a person working in Korea for General Electric. That person's children did not attend the local Korean schools. I doubt if the British children attended the local Kenyan schools.
[nq:2]Whereever would you get that? It's entirely possible, but hardly the norm.[/nq]
[nq:1]For immigrants, it's the norm. The immigrants' children attend school, and once they do, they are exposed to the national language, which they learn.[/nq]
I live in Florida. I assume you understand that Florida has a high population of immigrants with Spanish or (Haitian) French as their native language. I assume that you don't know that many of these immigrant children do not pick up more than basic English in school. Even that basic English can be so accented as not to be of practical use. The schools are required to provide lessons and tests in Spanish. A student can complete the basic educational requirements without mastering English or without needing to. They can come out of high school without the ability of basic communication skills in English and without the ability to read or write English effectively.

We also have a high Asiatic (mostly Vietnamese and Cambodian) population. The children of these families generally fare much better in learning English. Much, much better. This seems to be a result of family encouragement.
[nq:1]Each generation is thus more and more assimilated with the locals. The third native-born generation is usually completely "localized."[/nq]
Not at all so. Depends on what "completely localized" means. Better skills, but not sufficient skills. "Usually" is also a sloppy term. If you'd write "often", I'd agree. "Frequently", even. Not "usually", though.
[nq:2]The period of time is irrelevant. It's the insularity of the community that is the issue.[/nq]
[nq:1]The period of time is a big factor. Once you start raising children in the new country, assimilation begins.[/nq]
That's the point in an insular community. It doesn't. There are communities in this state where there is no assimilation, and no attempt at assimilation. And, no need for assimilation.
[nq:1]The original immigrants can hold out for a lifetime, but the new country will be the native home of their children, who will see no reason to continue the isolation and many reasons to assimilate.[/nq]
If you have practical experience in this area, it is in a situation that is unlike the situation that I live in.
Certainly, there are first-generation immigrants here that assimilate quickly and completely. You can't flip "norm" and "usually" around, though.
I speak from what I personally observe and experience. You don't want to reveal what you personally observe and experience, so there's no way to tell if you are self-generating these theories or observing something that is different than what I observe.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Tony Cooper:

[nq:2]If they remain and have children, though, the children become ... the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans don't leave after five years.[/nq]
[nq:1]The Puerto Ricans don't have to leave. They are all 100% legal residents anywhere in the US. There is no such thing as a Puerto Rican immigrant to the US.[/nq]
No one said they had to leave. I disagree with mxsmaniac on many issues, but he didn't say that. We understand all about the status of Puerto Ricans in the US. If you want to contribute, read what has been written and don't comment on what was not written.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

David Eduardo:

[nq:2]The Puerto Ricans don't have to leave. They are all ... such thing as a Puerto Rican immigrant to the US.[/nq]
[nq:1]No one said they had to leave. I disagree with mxsmaniac on many issues, but he didn't say that. ... the US. If you want to contribute, read what has been written and don't comment on what was not written.[/nq]
What was written was, "...Puerto Ricans don't leave after 5 years."

Puerto Ricans have no place to leave to. They are home, they are Americans.

To write otherwise is to show that you do not, indeed, understand the status of Puerto Ricans in the US. Their status is the same as that of Texans in the US. Like Southwest Airlines' slogan, "free to roam about the country."

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Mxsmanic:

[nq:1]In many countries the children of diplomats and foreign workers are schooled in private schools and not in the local school system.[/nq]
Even in private schools, children are often heavily exposed to local culture, especially where the local culture is similar to or at a level near the culture of their parents (as for Americans in Europe, for example).
[nq:1]It's been snipped, but part of this discussion was about a person working in Korea for General Electric. That person's children did not attend the local Korean schools. I doubt if the British children attended the local Kenyan schools.[/nq]
Differences are greater in such countries, but eventually children and their descendants will assimilate. It's unusual for multiple generations to grow up and live out their lives entirely in isolated compounds.
[nq:1]I assume that you don't know that many of these immigrant children do not pick up more than basic English in school.[/nq]
Aren't they being taught in English?
[nq:1]The schools are required to provide lessons and tests in Spanish.[/nq]
Why? More SIG and PAC activity to create a captive Hispanophone underclass?
[nq:1]A student can complete the basic educational requirements without mastering English or without needing to.[/nq]
Unfortunately, a student has no hope of entering the American mainstream unless he is fluent in English. If he does not master English, he will be fodder for a select group of demagogues for his entire lifetime, living in an isolated world cut off from the rest of society.
[nq:1]They can come out of high school without the ability of basic communication skills in English and without the ability to read or write English effectively.[/nq]
See above. The real reasons for this are quite sinister.
[nq:1]We also have a high Asiatic (mostly Vietnamese and Cambodian) population. The children of these families generally fare much better in learning English. Much, much better. This seems to be a result of family encouragement.[/nq]
Are they taught in Vietnamese and Cambodian at school? Can they graduate from high school speaking only these languages?

Are there influential groups that have a strong vested interest in maintaining a captive underclass that speaks only Vietnamese or Cambodian?
[nq:1]That's the point in an insular community. It doesn't. There are communities in this state where there is no assimilation, and no attempt at assimilation. And, no need for assimilation.[/nq]
Those communities will always be isolated minorities. They tend to die out in time as younger generations discover the attractions of mainstream society.
In the cases to which you refer, these communities are no doubt being artificially maintained and encouraged by people who stand to profit handsomely from their existence and the captive, effectively incommunicado populations they contain.
[nq:1]If you have practical experience in this area, it is in a situation that is unlike the situation that I live in.[/nq]
The situation you describe is extremely artificial; it does not reflect the normal development of a society, but a contrived effort to force the creation of ghettos.
[nq:1]I speak from what I personally observe and experience. You don't want to reveal what you personally observe and experience, so there's no way to tell if you are self-generating these theories or observing something that is different than what I observe.[/nq]
I can tell you that there are very few SIGs and PACs working to prevent assimilation where I live, and so the natural course of societal evolution tends to rule.

Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

RE: Why is it that only the spanish culture can't learn the English language? page 6

Asuntos relacionados: