Gadling

I have traveled to a number of foreign destinations. I have found that the US is one of the few countries that accommodates ALL languages in far too many places. For example, when traveling in Indonesia, the minute I was outside the main sections of Jakarta, very little was in English especially the menus of small, privately owned eateries. Now, none of them had a sign like this gentleman, but the point is there were no concessions made to me as a foreigner. Here we seem to take "melting pot" to heart a little too often. Where else can you go to the DMV and find the driving manuals in 14 different languages? Or ATM machines in 10 different languages? Even in this example in other countries the ATMs are in the local tongue and English, not every language under the sun. My two cents...

Reply

I live in Sweden, but I grew up in the states. I'm in a university town, and there are quite a few international students around. Everyone here can speak English fluently, so most of the foreign students make no attempt to speak Swedish. While I can understand that you might not try to learn a new language if you are already struggling with english, i think its really rude when the native english-speakers (from the US, UK, etc) make no attempt whatsoever.

I guess what I mean to say is that americans cant expect it to go both ways. if you want people to speak english when visiting in the US, then dont be upset if a frenchman refuses to speak english with you. hell, whats wrong with learning a few new languages anyways?!

Reply

Honestly, I think it's perfectly valid. When I lived in Korea, you know what I did? I learned Korean. When I stayed in France for a long period of time, I learned as much French as I could. As a person who's an American, however, I find it somewhat obnoxious that the melting pot concept has gone too far. I mean the bottom line is I can understand if you're actively trying to make an effort and it's just difficult. That's fine, you're trying, and I can respect that. What I cannot stand are people who refuse to even try and learn English and just stick with their native tongue. As an Asian-American, someone who is multi-lingual and exposed to a multitude of international cultures, I understand the importance of retaining one's cultural history and language is an important aspect of that. But the bottom line is that we're all in America where, as much as some will disagree, English is more or less the defacto standard here. And it's important because deviating from that makes live very difficult. When talking to an immigrant who refuses to learn English, the simplest things become impossible because it's unrealistic for all of them to expect me to know every language under the sun.

It's not that difficult to retain your native culture yet adapt to your host country. I, and all other Americans, should not be forced to do so the other way around. In fact, I find it somewhat rude that people from other countries will come here to an English standard country and expect ME to speak their language. That would be like me going to Thailand and making a giant fuss every time someone says I should learn Thai.

Well, duh.

Reply

Another point, there's no problem with that sign. The sign says when ordering, speak English. It's not like he's banning anyone speaking anything in his restaurant. These comparisons to Jim Crow laws are just completely absurd.

Reply

I would have thought a savvy businessman would be happy to make a sale whatever the language...

Reply

Ricardo, if people went to a country and forgot their culture, the world would be a sucky place. No product or tradition would ever be celebrated because they're all the result of the elemental fact that people move from one country to another. I hope you become the perfect gringo, and leave latin america free of thinking like yours. If I move to USA, I'll never forget Venezuela, my country, nor it's traditions. Ya might wanna google "arepa". It's the best food you'll ever have.

Reply

I really dont feel that we as citizens of the United States of America have an actually valid argument against anyone who wants to come to this country and not learn English. I make this choice on a small amount of truths that seem to be overlooked. First the U.S. does not have a national language, we are speaking English, a language of another country, we are not speaking US American, so we really cant say we have a set language anyway, the majority of us just speak English. Second we as a country are protected by our first amendment...FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yes albeit the majority of the people in this country only believe in freedom of speech when it is appropriate or helpful to fullfilling their own agendas, and will willingly throw it out the window when it becomes a hassel, a legal paramount it still is. Every human being living in the land in between Canada and Mexico has the right to say anything they want, no one has the right to stop them or refuse them service because of it. Now if a customer cannot be understood, and a small amount of pantamime must be performed thats what must be done, because no one can legally reprobate someones needs just because they are not speaking their language. In the same right everyone has the appanage to say i am wrong, and that only English should be spoken in the U.S. In the end it comes down to the fact that legally that man did not have the authority to deny service to non english speaking people.

Reply

How many languages is his sign written in? Looks like only one.

If the boot were on the other foot, how many travelling Americans for example would be capable of understanding "Zde jste na Moravě. Mluvte prosím Český"

Rights, legalities and nationalities aside, the guy is a first-rate feckwit.

Reply

Oddsocks has a good point... Anyone who doesn't speak/read English won't be able to read his sign, so all it really serves to do is to point out that he's probably not a very nice man.

Without knowing the first thing about American laws re: discrimination, I'd guess that as long as he hasn't actually thrown anyone out of his store because of the language they're speaking, he's not breaking the law. Although he may even be within his rights to throw people out - I don't think language is protected the way race, gender and age (and sexual orientation, in Canada - not sure about that in the US?) are from discrimination.

I think the sign is rude and ignorant, but I also think the comparisons to the "No Indians or Dogs" signs (or the "No Blacks No Dogs No Irish" signs that could be seen around London for a long time) is extreme. There's a difference (admittedly, I suppose it's a subtle one) between attacking someone for who they are, and attempting to control how they behave. He's not saying "No Non-English Speakers Allowed", he's asking them to speak English - and that's probably why he gets away with it.

I'm impressed by how civilized this thread of comments is... on most news sites this story would have a string of comments full of hatred and anger. Yay Gadling readers!

Reply

Also, Pat @ #1 - I think the people in Indonesia would have been happy to accomodate you if they had the resources and education to do so...

And I don't see where the harm is in having lots of languages at the DMV. How does that hurt you or make your life worse in any way? I understand people not wanting to make accomodations that force changes to their own habits or traditions, but I don't understand when the accomodation doesn't affect English-speakers in the least.

Reply

I see nothing wrong with the sign except that it's necessary at all. Why would one expect to order in an American resturant in anything other than english? If I worked there and someone spoke another language and I couldn't understand, sorry, go else where. Although there are plenty of places in the USA where english is not spoken. Go to down town El Paso and you will swear that you're in Mexico. It's quite disgusting. But hey, we let it happen.

Reply

Dear Abha,

As you can see from the comments your article did not create the impression you probably were going for, which is pretty much always the case when you write about certain issues. It's easier to see problems in the neighbor’s yard than in your own, so here's an outsider's take on how you can improve your articles. Hopefully, that helps. Good luck with your writing!

1. Clearly identify the issue – very few readers today will carefully read an article and analyze what is it you’re trying to say. What is your problem - the sign? Lack of English speakers in Madrid? China winning bid for the Olympics? Are you against racists? People who want you to study English while in the US and French while in France? I’m a bit surprised no one replied “You’re so right, they should let the dogs in the restaurants - my Mimi is my daughter” so far.

2. Research the issue – you’re talking about a very interesting problem here, tens of thousands pages were written about that from at least two angles – preserving the US as a single cultural entity and the huge language problems of the EU government that forced to function on many languages. Don’t you think providing principal conclusions and arguments of these debates that would help you to back up your point of view and help your readers to build up with their own informed position?

3. Do not use fallacies to back up your position. No need to explain this, right? Or if that wasn’t on purpose – always check your writings for fallacies! Double and triple check – they’re much, much worse than spelling or grammar problems.

4. Never present an issue as a one dimensional picture because even if your story is really clear cut and one dimensional (and very few are!) you, as a journalist, should be objective and explain positions of the both sides.

5. Please understand that United States of America is not, by any stretch of imagination, a simple country. I know that from the outside it looks like easy to understand McDonald’s inhabited by Tom, Jerry and Paris Hilton but in reality it’s a social experiment unsurpassed in magnitude or complexity before or after. Take all ethnic complexity of India and multiply it by 50, add integration issues of the EU, add historical tensions of Olster, add get-it-done-fast attitude of new Asian Tigers, etc., etc. – that’s America. The issue you tried to deal with in this article is one of the most complex and emotionally charged ones in this very complex and dynamic country (just as a couple of ones you touched on before – gun control, etc). You can see it from the number of replies, right? Quite frankly, these issues are so complex that one has to be a first-rate journalist with very deep knowledge and many years of relevant experience to deal with them in a short article. I’m not discouraging you from complex issues but if you want to rise above the summer camp newsletter level of journalism you need to respect these issues, i.e. understand their size and be ready for some heavy duty research they require.

Reply

I think people are missing the point. It's not about making English the only speakable language in the United States. It's about establishing a baseline form of communication. I'm sure if you ordered in English and then proceeded to speak to your table mates in whatever language you wanted to, nobody would care. It's not even about asking everyone to become a scholar in the English language.

I've written papers about the American culture and the unique setting that the breadth and scope of the broad immigration has created here and language is often in the focus of this. It creates a problem (and the severity depends from location to location) because there is no baseline form of communication. It's sort of like the American cell phone network. Verizon and Sprint use one form of communication, Nextel uses another, and T-Mobile and Cingular use yet another. At a 50,000 mile high view of it, all the major cell carriers can speak to each other and work with each other because under their differing technologies, there is a common baseline network that links them.

Now imagine if they refused to work with that one network that let the different companies talk to each other. If you're on Cingular, you'd only be able to talk to other Cingular users. Verizon users to themselves, and so on and so forth.

It's not the exact same problem, but it's a loose analogy and I hope it more or less illustrates the point I'm trying to get at here. What that sign tells me is that it's not as concerned with what anyone chooses to speak, but to get something like ordering food done quickly, having that common base form of communication becomes important.

Reply

Jason says:

"First the U.S. does not have a national language, we are speaking English, a language of another country, we are not speaking US American, so we really cant say we have a set language anyway, the majority of us just speak English."

Actually, "American" is recognized as a separate dialect of English from that spoken in England. Although originally English was imported into the United States from England, the language itself has evolved sufficiently to be considered a separate branch of the English language, so I don't really know that this argument works.

A better tactic might be arguing the point that the U.S. doesn't have an official language, even though the majority of us do speak English. As such, there's no requirement, as say, in France, that official business be conducted in a specific language. But even in France, there's no requirement that private business be conducted in French, which brings us to my other point.

He also says:

"Second we as a country are protected by our first amendment...FREEDOM OF SPEECH."
Others of you have mentioned questions of discrimination. So I'm going to try my best to present a legal perspective on the issue:

1) Freedom of speech: You're right Jason. The first amendment grants a broad right to say whatever you want whenever you want. (The actual legality of it is more complex than that, but let's go with that as an idea.) However, the owner of private property nonetheless maintains the right to regulate what occurs on his property -- if he doesn't like what you have to say about president Bush, he's welcome to throw you off his land, and you have no legal remedy. This is also true of private businesses, although to a slightly lesser degree, because as a business open to the public, you invite all who wish to purchase your goods/services into your business. Nonetheless, a business owner still can ask a member of the public to leave his premises for (almost) any reason he likes, including his speech. Think about bar bouncing for an example. As a result, a business owner can regulate the speech on his premises. For the most part, he's also allowed to say almost whatever the hell he wants on his own premises with little legal ramification.

This segues nicely into:

2) A business owner can ask you to leave his premises for (almost) any reason he likes. The almost in that sentence has to do with discrimination. There are two lines of discrimination law. The first has to do with having a negative effect on interstate commerce. (See Heart of Atlanta Hotel) The second has to do with governmental discrimination, and is based on the 5th and 14th amendments, granting equal protection of the laws. (See Roe v. Wade)

The interstate commerce argument is that if, for example, you won't allow women to stay in your hotel, and by doing so, you create an overall negative effect on interstate commerce, you're in violation of the law as only the federal government may regulate interstate commerce.

The equal protection argument is that, under the 5th amendment (and via the 14th, which extends the protections of the 5th to the states), all citizens are granted equal protection of the laws. So if Colorado passes a law that says women can't vote, it is unconstitutional as it denies women equal protection. However, this argument only applies to government action (equal protection of the LAWS), not to private citizens, so things like discriminatory covenants in homeowner's associations, or discriminatory bylaws for private clubs, are permissible, as long as the government plays no part in enforcing them. (See Shelley v. Kramer)

The interesting part of both of the above arguments is that, due to different kinds of scrutiny applied to different kinds of cases, the arguments really only apply to certain "protected classes" -- race, gender, national origin, and now, increasingly sexual orientation. You notice that language isn't one of those, although many people argue that national origin is synonymous with language, and so discrimination on the basis of language (i.e. national origin), should also be disallowed.

Even if language is presumed to be a protected class, you still have to show GOVERNMENTAL backing of the discrimination of that store owner, or that his sign has a significant effect on interstate commerce, in order for it to be illegal.

I personally think what the business owner did, while hateful, is perfectly legal. But that's just this lawyer's opinion

Reply

I think that in Previous eras, there was the expectation that newcomers would assimilate and speak a common language. Now, people can stay within their community and never have to learn English, because accommodations are made. This is fine in terms of their ability to get day to day things done, but it works against deeper conversations, esp. with the people who hold most of the power and wealth, which means mostly English speakers in this country. This doesn't unite the country, it divides it. It's fine to keep your native tongue, but learn to communicate deeply with those who are not of your culture. It's what I would (and have) done when I've visited other countries. It is claimed that second generation immigrants (the children) learn English, but I'd say that functional English and a deeper command of the language are two different things. I understand the sentiment, but think that the sign is insensitive. Would he have a similar sign for people who were deaf?

Reply

English is required on the US Citizenship test. English is the defacto (even if not dejure) language of USA. The melting pot Pat mentioned only works because of a common language. Without the common language you get cultural fragmentation and isolation.

It isn't feasible, or in many cases possible, to make everything multilingual. Imagine a single traffic sign in 5 languages. Anyone who is going to spend more than a week or maybe two in a country NEEDS to learn the language. To bend over backwards for someone who's been here for 5 years (or whatever) and can't even order basic food at a restaurant needs to either get off their big behind and learn right now, or leave.

He obviously doesn't cater to the foreign tourist crowd. And that's fine. It isn't racist at all. He and his staff may only speak one language (aka English) and this is a means to avoid confusion, not to mention, avoiding possibly enfranchising a subculture of illegal immigrants.

If you want to know my stance on illegal immigrants? It's very easy. Get rid of them. Have them do it the legal way from their own country. However, we need to streamline our end of the process, as well as make it easier to qualify and increase allowed quantities. In other words, make it easier for law abiding folks, but block those who aren't. That's not racist. It's not protectionist. I don't care if your mexican, iraqi, japanese, or even german. The same rules apply to everyone.

It's too bad that Abha can't understand that.

Reply

I can't agree more with #13 above. It's not that these subjects don't have a place on Gadling, it's that such complex topics are glossed in 4 to 5 paragraphs.

I'm sure Abha is a fine person, but the quality of articles needs to be raised to a level fitting AOL Weblogs. Many seem to have an air of political and/or moral flame.

Reply

A few days ago, my daughter and I went to an Asian market to pick up a specialty item. Inside the market were a number of little stores. One store featured Hello Kitty items. I was interested in a Christmas stocking for my granddaughter for sale there, but with no price tag, so I asked the clerk, "How much?" Her reply in very broken English: "No English." My response? "No sale!"

This happened in Texas.

Reply

Freedom of Speech should only apply to those who are actual U.S citizens, or who are LEGAL aliens. Screw everyone else, honestly. Yes, learning a different language is extremely important not only for yourself, but to talk to other people, but it's ridiculous! I can speak spanish, french, english, a little bit of portugese, and even less creole. I usually have all of my customers covered, but the ones who come here and absolutely refuse to speak english are incompetent. If I went to Lithuania, I'd learn some lithuanian; If I went to China, I'd learn a little chinese. It's a common courtesy whether you're legal, illegal, or just visiting; Atleast show that you're trying, that's all we ask.

Reply

I am hispanic, and for respect to this country that welcome me, I worked hard on learning the language of the country, English; I am still learning it is hard but not imposible; I do not believe on keeping traditions from other cultures, any inmigrat should learn the USA traditions and treasure them deep and their hearts. Forget about your roots. What did your place of origin give you that can be treasure? other than misery; most foreigner came to this country because their own culture could not provide for their basics necesities; Thats why you need to treasure the language, customs and traditions of this nation, because this nation is giving you what your could not have in your own nation. This nation has blessed you with everything.

Reply