Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't look down on it in principle, but I feel like those who don't know at least one other language even moderately well seem to be really provincial and prone to be a bit more myopic overall.
Why? What if you have no use for it, would you learn French just to sound cultured and worldly if you never left the US, or Australia or Canada or something? Don't see the point. What you gonna use it for, to show off?
My first language is English. There are 3 other languages where I can really communicate, or could when I was in practice. A couple of others where it was easy enough to get around the country.
But I also know how hard it is to pick up and maintain other languages when your first language is English. If you're really going to do it, you have to know people whose English is *already* weaker than your (XXX language). If you live in the US, that means you have to talk to very recent immigrants or to old people who've never learned English.
The one exception to this is Spanish, because there are so many Spanish-speakers. Some people come here and never fully get comfortable in English (but many of them understand a lot).
Nobody who derides English monolinguals who have no interest in travel or working abroad for being insular, provincial or not worldly have given any good reason why they should learn another language. To communicate with those who don't speak English well? Bad reason, THEY should be the ones learning English. Again, why, to show off? Academic wankery? It's more useful to learn about other histories, cultures.etc, only if you're really interested in another culture like Chinese would it be useful to learn Chinese to read their literature, talk to Chinese people.etc. Same with Spanish.
I don't fall into that category. I like to travel and learn a bit of a language ,but I won't learn any seriously unless I have need, like say if I lived in that country.
Nobody who derides English monolinguals who have no interest in travel or working abroad for being insular, provincial or not worldly have given any good reason why they should learn another language. To communicate with those who don't speak English well? Bad reason, THEY should be the ones learning English. Again, why, to show off? Academic wankery? It's more useful to learn about other histories, cultures.etc, only if you're really interested in another culture like Chinese would it be useful to learn Chinese to read their literature, talk to Chinese people.etc. Same with Spanish.
I don't fall into that category. I like to travel and learn a bit of a language ,but I won't learn any seriously unless I have need, like say if I lived in that country.
Personally, I believe in the concept of holistic education.
Why did I have religious education in High School? I don't want to be a priest. Why did I learn about biology? Utterly useless in my field of work. Maths? Pff... All just academic wankery to show off.
And yes, you usually learn about the culture of Spain/... when you learn Spanish here in Austria. But I guess it's the same in Australia/the US, anyway?
Not really, I may look down on monolingual speakers who:
1) Have immigrated to another country and refuse to learn the language
2) Are native speakers of an important language (almost always English but also French) and consider other languages to be trash not worth being learnt.
3)Don't learn any other language out of the supposed concept that "We speak English (or French) why should I struggle with learning?"
4) Are close-minded
Out of these categories I don't really look down on anyone (and I rarely, very rarely, met that kind of people).
Whenever I went to UK I met Britons being monolingual,yet they had a wide range of curiosity for the external world and they liked hearing of foreign countries, plus most Britons I met travelled a lot.
Now, I can understand that not all English native speakers have the time to learn a foreign language, most of them have more important things to do and I do accept that.
If monolingualism is accompanied by a sheer dose of arrogance and contempt for other cultures, then I might look down on that person,to give two examples:
1) In Milan I met a group of American WASP (White-Anglo Saxon Protestants) who were likely to be the most ignorant and dumbest people I ever met. Never seen so stupid, arrogant and ignorant people.
Yet, I do know not all Americans, luckily, are of that kind, on the contrary, most of them aren't.
Did I look down on WASP? Yes I did. Not because I reckoned myself superior, just because I despise narrow-minded people who dislike other cultures regardless of them.
2) My brother can only speak Italian (officiallu he should understand some English but it's not really the truth) and yesterday he asked me what it means "Osservare" which is translated in English with "To Observe".
Despite being adopted when he was aged 7(now 19) and being a Spanish native speaker (who totally replaced Spanish with Italian), he doesn't even know what it means "observe", he is perfectly capable to inflect it in all moods but he doesn't know the meaning.
I might look down on him because his lack of knowledge is due to laziness but not certainly because he isn't as "educated" as me.
Furthermore, learning language isn't easy, it requires time, sweat and effort and not everybody are cut for it.
Personally, I believe in the concept of holistic education.
Why did I have religious education in High School? I don't want to be a priest. Why did I learn about biology? Utterly useless in my field of work. Maths? Pff... All just academic wankery to show off.
And yes, you usually learn about the culture of Spain/... when you learn Spanish here in Austria. But I guess it's the same in Australia/the US, anyway?
Well I don't mind kids being taught a couple of years of language in school, but this idea you have to achieve some fluency in a language to be 'cultured' etc just sounds elitist. Nothing wrong if that's your choice, but the idea that those who don't are less cultured annoys me.
I am fortunate to be bilingual and also know how to get by in a couple of other languages as my family moved overseas when I was a child and then I worked also overseas as an adult. I don't look down at monolingual speakers as I feel that others didn't have the opportunities to learn other languages at a young age like myself and live in other countries like I did.
Well I don't mind kids being taught a couple of years of language in school, but this idea you have to achieve some fluency in a language to be 'cultured' etc just sounds elitist. Nothing wrong if that's your choice, but the idea that those who don't are less cultured annoys me.
I don't think that people who don't learn a second language are less cultured. I'd definitely say, though, that a school curriculum that is lacking some sort of language education is definitely inferior to one that teaches a language up to the level of fluency.
I don't think that people who don't learn a second language are less cultured. I'd definitely say, though, that a school curriculum that is lacking some sort of language education is definitely inferior to one that teaches a language up to the level of fluency.
Well now children have to learn a foreign language for something like 5-6 years I believe (in my day it was only 2 years).
Trust me the Midwest, and pieces of the South feel like a time warp compared to the Northeast. I'm used to living a car free lifestyle, when I take a little break/vacation to certain cities it's a drag. Depending on where you are in the country you'll find a bit of uh..I guess you can call it a "regression" (depending on your point of origin). That's one of the good things about the US, if you want the best of rural/nature you have it available to you. If you need that car free city life it's available to you.
"Time warp"? Regression? Car culture is a national thing. I know many people in the northeast. Most of them who earn enough have a car and drive daily, and this includes people who live in DC and Boston metro. Car ownership of these two metros is not low at all, because cars are cheap in the US and because of the low price, the convenience, mobility and freedom one gets in exchange for a low price is irresistible.
The only US city where car ownership is even anywhere near comparable to overseas markets is NYC. Going by your theory of other states being in a time warp, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Mumbai, India, Karachi, Pakistan, to various Balkan states, Eastern European countries, Shanghai, any other over populated metro, and various other third world and developing cities are "advanced".
Here's news for you. It costs money to buy a car. It costs a money to own a car. That's why the guy who rides his goat and collects trash for a living in India doesn't drive. It's not because he's so cosmopolitan. It's because cars are for the rich.
The main determinants of car ownership are two, money and density. Nothing more nothing less. That's why the three countries with car culture that pervades every citizen and resident are the three countries with the low densities that also are rich countries. These three countries are the only non microstates in the list of top 10 richest countries in the world.
In any case, your life is my greatest nightmare realized.
Last edited by sadgirl80; 01-30-2014 at 06:50 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
