Race- Privilege, Relations, Racism, etc.

According to what Gabrael said before, receiving counsel in a language you understand is a basic right.

Again, I haven't been able to verify, though.

It's even an international right: withholding council on the basis of language is breaking a number of international treaties when applied to foreign nationals.

Citizens are a little more complex, but the basic premise is the same: you have no excuse for breaking the law... but, the mitigating circumstance of not knowing that you had thanks to e.g. not understanding should be taken into account upon sentencing. And, council that you can understand should always be given. Including in contract making: a company that doesn't provide information in language or manner you can understand can actually be done for fraud or, at least, misselling.

Consumers do have rights (granted, EU consumers have more rights than US ones, but... you guys still do have rights). The problem of course is... being able to fund a court case. And, being able to work out you were missold something. It's quite the Catch 22. Heck, even finding out that you were missold something can be the uphill battle even in your native tongue. <points at all the pension, investment and mortgage scandals — let alone bank fees, etc., etc.>

edited 6th Feb '14 2:33:47 PM by Euodiachloris

Given the information here, medical regulations for language access in the USA are based off of a court interpretation basically tying "national origin" to spoken language, with regard to anti-discrimination regulations. In practice, however, it pretty much means you might get lucky with an adequate translation in Spanish (or Aramaic), but overall the system is pretty hit-and-miss while also turning out to be quite expensive, and, as I suspected, there are no federal standards for medical interpreters.

Nor is it apparently an actual right to have legal documents prepared in one's preferred language. Thus, any translation provided is explicitly a band-aid for people unable to read the laws as written, with English being the de facto (and in more than half the states, the de jure) official language of choice. It's only prudent to encourage people to learn it, as, for all practical purposes, they will have to.

...The US sucks, then. You should see the bumf British councils and government departments produce in various languages as standard or on request. <_< Leaflets on everything you can think of. In a few languages you've probably never heard of, even.

edited 6th Feb '14 5:55:10 PM by Euodiachloris

A large part of the point of making a language official is the fact that it would standardize interpreting regulations, where as now it's basically "Hope you get lucky, non-English speakers" because there's no real formal system in place. Sure, your hospital might have a Spanish or Arabic or Hindi interpreter, but it probably won't.

Making a language official would pave the way to introduce procedures for accommodating non-English speakers in the short term^note Such as interpreters guaranteed to have credentials beyond "took some Spanish in high school and can say me duele la cabeza", as well as teaching them English for the long term.

edited 6th Feb '14 6:34:52 PM by somerandomdude

Most languages do get a fair amount of support as is. My grandparents live in state island, and It's almost a little piece of the south plonked down in new york as far as racial stuff goes, and they still get government stuff in at LEAST 6 or 7 languages. off the top of my head I think it's English, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Arabic, and maybe hindu. Might have a couple others too.

Though that might be because it's technically part of NYC.

It's NYC, they speak every language under the sun there.

If you're out in some mid-size town in the Midwest, you're basically SOL.

Hindu is a person who adheres to Hinduism.

Hindi is a language.

I'd pin that on the usual Urdu-Hindi issue, myself... <_<

Mind you, with Urdu... it's "pick your weapon". It has as many varieties as Anglic and English combined do. If not more. Heck, with Hindi: it's the Indian Subcontinent's "Germanic languages" group. :| On acid.

edited 6th Feb '14 11:18:13 PM by Euodiachloris

oh my goodness the headaches all that caused when I was trying to learn! Bengali Hindi is like more Urdu than Tamil Hindi, but jeebuz the tribal influences....

(Headspins)

Didn't India pick English as one of its official languages precisely because it wasn't that much of a fuss to standardize and teach? Not to mention being the language that, for political reasons, everyone hates equally.

They also renamed Bombay to Mumbai. Yay.

No. English is a bitch to learn.

India did it because as a former British colony, so much of their infrastructure was already in English it was too hard not to include it. They did the same thing with Portuguese in Goa.

Um...what is "Tamil Hindi"? Or "Bengal Hindi"?

Bengali is a completely separate language from Hindi, and Tamil isn't even related (Hindi is Indo-European, Tamil is Dravidian, about as separate from Hindi as Japanese is from English).

AFAIK there are no significant Hindi dialects spoken in West Bengal, Bangladesh or Tamil Nadu.

Incidentally, Hindi and Urdu are almost completely mutually intelligible. The differences are more akin to Austrian vs North German or Brazilian vs European Portuguese than two separate languages.

edited 7th Feb '14 1:00:39 AM by somerandomdude

Hindi and Urdu are only 60-80% congruant depending on what linguist study you accept.

Have you spoken to a Bengali in Hindi? It sounds totally different from a Tamil speaker. This isn't just an accent thing. Some words aren't used the same, a Tamil speaker probably will use more loan words from their native language, some vowels don't match right.

Very much like Egyptian Arabic to Saudi Arabic or Appalachian English against textbook English, or Guatamalan Spanish against Peninsula Spanish. You will most likely be able to understand what the other is saying technicallyfor the most part. But that doesn't mean you understand the meaning behind what they are saying.

For a German example, consider how German uses compound nouns to make new words? A student may be able to translate each of those words but that doesn't mean they understand that particular word since the compounds are kinda off with the actual meaning like Kummerspeck.

I'm not seeing where that link says any of that. All I got out of that source is that supporting multiple languages is horribly under-supported and under-funded, but could be alleviated with greater emphasis on the subject and adequate government funding.

Where you're getting the idea that it's "hit or miss" and "expensive" I'm not sure. Of course there's going to be problems if the funding is insufficient, and it'll likely never be perfect, but that's hardly the point.

Ironically, your example is a quote from a Republican senator, so that made me suspicious enough to investigate. Funnily enough, according to this source, the case he's referring to occurred in Alabama—one of the few states in the US to declare English an "official language", and the resulting problem is stated by the link above to be a direct result of that.

edited 7th Feb '14 4:48:21 AM by KingZeal

I would have thought any official languages of the US should also include Navajo, Cree, Sioux, etc. In fact, designating them official languages could keep them alive. Least the US government can do, really.

edited 7th Feb '14 5:37:01 AM by Achaemenid

I hear New Zealand has done the same with regard to Maori. Not a bad idea, all things considered. Plenty of nations work well with two official languages, so it's not something unusual or unenforceable.

Basically, legal document translations aren't federally mandated, while on-call translations are often practically unavailable, and only grow more expensive the larger the respective language group becomes. And considering that whole "Republican senator made me suspicious" reaction of yours, on top of feigning ignorance over plain text, I think you're getting needlessly contrarian and politicizing, since the laws and regulations themselves don't appear to favor your stance. Nor does the No True Scotsman of "sufficient funding" hold any water with regard to where said funding would come from, especially given the positive feedback nature of continuously fostering the use of growing numbers of foreign languages. Bottom line - as much as you don't like it, you might want to first consider what is, in order to have some realistic basis of what ought.

edited 7th Feb '14 5:46:57 AM by indiana404

No, I got that part.

I'm not seeing how that disagrees with what I said. The article does NOT say that overall, the idea is "hit or miss". It says that many places and persons are still unprotected. As I said before, no one is expecting this to be perfect.

I honestly missed that the first time. However, that doesn't say that the cost is not something which can be practically accounted for.

No, the "bottom line" is that first, do not make personal attacks on me. Second, you completely ignored my statement before about how your second link was specifically from a Republican senator, a political party known for being tough on immigration. Further, taking a looking the actual case itself, the problem was started DIRECTLY because a state of the US declared English an official language. It's disingenuous to accuse me of bad faith for a simple mistake when you yourself provide biased and inaccurate sources.

They kinda have to in NZ, since about half of New Zealand's armed forces are Maori. Another example is South Africa, which has English, Xhosa, Zulu, Xitsonga, Ndebele, Afrikaans, Siswati, and Tshvenda. India has English and Hindi as official languages, though the states are permitted to designate their own languages if they so wish.

Exactly. In practical terms, having one or more official language is not so much an exclusive restriction, as much as it is a reliable baseline for citizens and potential immigrants to understand and follow the laws, as well as receive better social services.

edited 7th Feb '14 6:18:47 AM by indiana404

Personally, I would make the official languages of the United States - if the USA was to have such a thing - English and all the native languages which are still spoken widely enough to make it worthwhile. Spanish too, maybe. But is there really a need?

edited 7th Feb '14 6:17:56 AM by Achaemenid

There aren't any native languages spoken in high numbers regretfully.

Spanish is already an official language in Puerto Rico, next to English. Texas and New Mexico could also make use of it. I'm wondering more about French, with regard to Louisiana and parts of the North-East.

NPR is talking about the coke ad now.

No there ain't - there's tons left. Navajo has, according to the 2007 census, between 120-170,000 speakers. That's a hell of a lot more than Welsh or both Gaelics combined, and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland have put a lot of effort in preserving them. Kernowek, the old language of Cornwall, was revived in the early 2000s too. The USA is extraordinarily blessed with indigenous language - there's Yu'pik and Alutiiq in Alaska too.

My original concern with Spanish was that it was a sort of "implanted" language that had no basis in the actual history of the USA, so it would simply be encouraging a linguistic enclave among new arrivals. Looking into the actual facts, that's bullshit; Spanish speakers were the first permanent residents of the Americas, and many were brought in with the Louisiana purchase. Speaking of which; Cajun and Creole French as official languages?

edited 7th Feb '14 6:29:29 AM by Achaemenid