What’s In a Name?
A 15-year-old is suing the Icelandic state for the right to legally use the name given to her by her mother. The problem? Blaer, which means “light breeze” in Icelandic, is not on a list approved by the government.
Like a handful of other countries, including Germany and Denmark, Iceland has official rules about what a baby can be named. In a country comfortable with a firm state role, most people don’t question the Personal Names Register, a list of 1,712 male names and 1,853 female names that fit Icelandic grammar and pronunciation rules and that officials maintain will protect children from embarrassment. Parents can take from the list or apply to a special committee that has the power to say yea or nay.
In Blaer’s case, her mother said she learned the name wasn’t on the register only after the priest who baptized the child later informed her he had mistakenly allowed it.
What?
The socialist darling countries of the left limit choice and invade people’s privacy?
I’m shocked. Just shocked.
Maybe the socialists can settle this controversy and name people with numbers “taxslave1246, taxslave1247, etc.”
Stalinist countries never fail to disgust me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 0726 hrs
Please, please, PLEASE don’t give Obongo and his pals any more ideas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 0813 hrs
It’s cool with us!
Moon Unit & Dweezil ZappaPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 0900 hrs
Must be hell to find someone in a phone book.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 0928 hrs
Must be hell to find someone in a phone book.
Who wouldn’t like low cardinality on the first name in a phone book! /sarcasm
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 1042 hrs
Remember this next time some intelligent liberal says, “We need to be more like [enter European country here].”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 1338 hrs
It’d be waaaay worse trying to finding someone in Iceland by their last name (how many Jonssons and Jonsdottirs shall we wade through?). Besides, their whole culture is built around first names. Even children almost always refer to adults by their first names, if that name is known to them. That’s common elsewhere in Scandinavia too, even in countries where the last name is connected to familial lineage.
Kevin, most of the naming laws in Scandinavia are centuries old and owe to a highly traditional, Lutheran culture that once existed. I think it’s kind of silly too, but it’s also not my culture so it’s not really for me to judge. Just be mindful that what you’re judging is actually a product of conservative churchgoers, not a bunch of godless atheists. Iceland’s a beautiful place filled with some great people (stay away from the hákarl though, trust me on that), and they seem to be doing just fine without our help.
Mr. Pants, it’s not like America doesn’t also adhere to some goofy, outdated things that have been on the books for hundreds of years. I suspect some of our liberal friends feel that way every time some conservatives talk about their interpretations of the second amendment. I also feel pretty badly when I see some of the bass-ackwards names and bizarre alternative spellings that Americans, with all their freedom, choose to give to their offspring - especially girls. I mean, can you really name a girl Jazzmyn or Bryttanee and not think that in some small way you’re condemning her to a life on a stripper pole, or at minimum a life of being prejudged as flippant or unserious by the public at large? In the low-risk Scandinavian mindset, naming laws today basically exist to protect a unique national identity and to prevent parents from saddling their kids with their own bad judgment.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 03, 2013 at 1551 hrs
Yea, I get all that RS, and agree with you, as I believe many parents are living vicariously through their children via a particular name (their parents named them ‘Dave’ when they really wanted to be named, ‘Cheyenne’.)
My point it’s not the business of the government to decide which names are acceptable and which are not. And if it’s true that they have this type of law of the books to preserve a national identity, isn’t that effectively racism??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 1601 hrs
Recess,
Kevin, most of the naming laws in Scandinavia are centuries old and owe to a highly traditional, Lutheran culture that once existed. I think it’s kind of silly too, but it’s also not my culture so it’s not really for me to judge. Just be mindful that what you’re judging is actually a product of conservative churchgoers…
That may be the origin, but a socialist government has refined the process into this:
...most people don’t question the Personal Names Register, a list of 1,712 male names and 1,853 female names that fit Icelandic grammar and pronunciation rules and that officials maintain will protect children from embarrassment. Parents can take from the list or apply to a special committee that has the power to say yea or nay.
To me, that is typical socialist leftists basking in their government power.
Many leftists add to their power base seizing on “tradition”. Twisting “tradition” into a vast bureaucratic nonsense and empire…to the point a 15 year old has to sue to keep his name.
It’s the just the total lack of common sense of the average socialist I find problematic. The idea that no one can be different, or think outside the socialist “Borg” collective, is what I find reprehensible.
The general lack of tolerance in a socialist system is the basic human rights problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 1616 hrs
I figured you did Mr. Pants but thought it worth at least throwing the argument out there while I was writing.
Yeah, I don’t know if there’s a good answer to your question. Is it the place of government? Not ideally, any more than any of the other laws we have that seem to exist because people lack common sense. The kid’s the one that’s the victim here after all, not the parents. And I do think that government has a responsibility in some capacities to protect children from their parents’ bad judgment. I guess there can be some disagreement over where that line is drawn.
Of course, I don’t think America could ever pass anything that was common sense on this issue, because the second you ruled out some word that sounds something you hear yelled during childbirth, some member of the Congressional Black Caucus would complain that the list was racist.
As for racism in the naming list, I guess I don’t see it quite that way. I mean, it’s not like these laws only apply to white people in Iceland. I suppose the laws could be seen as nationalist, but a country like Iceland is also a small potato on a rapidly globalizing stage, so I can appreciate wanting to preserve this part of their heritage. By the same token, it would probably be more efficient for them to just switch to English (most speak it anyway), but I appreciate why they would want to preserve their language. Same goes with their naming conventions; hardly efficient but uniquely theirs.
Best approaches ever? Maybe not. But I will also recognize that I can’t divorce myself from my perspective growing up in the world’s largest cultural hegemon. I think sometimes it’s easy for Americans to fall into the trap of thinking that our way is best simply because it’s our way - when in reality, it’s just a way of doing things. As a naive flag-waving 23-year-old conservative (but really, who actually knows anything at 23 either way), I was certainly quite guilty of that when I began my Fulbright studies. And I will readily acknowledge that my time in Norway changed far more of my opinions than it hardened.
Icelanders don’t need my opinion as an American, so I don’t really bother forming one. If they want to have a list of names, that’s theirs to figure out. And every time I see some poor kid with a goofy, made-up name with zero historical basis, I’ll wonder if maybe they wouldn’t have been better off as a Brandon or a Stephanie.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 03, 2013 at 1743 hrs
Of course, in Iceland a boy could not be named Brandon and a girl could not be named Stephanie….
For the male child might I recommend Brandur, from the list of authorized names and not too far from your intentions…
The girl, however, is not going to be so lucky….
Might I recommend Snót, which IS on the list is is in no way whatsoever going to cause her embarrassment issues as she heads off to school….
Or perhaps Sonný, that is sure to be just the ticket.
and as for this all being traditional and long established? The naming committee was established in 1991 and the pertinent law is the Personal Names Act
No. 45 of 17th May 1996Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 1904 hrs
And as an aside, Blaer IS an acceptable name per the Personal Names Act
No. 45 of 17th May 1996, it is just on the boys list….Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 1906 hrs
Mr. Schuenemann—Heavens to Betsy, the Icelanders, the bastion of Marxist thought, are taking away people’s freedom. Indeed, we must denounce those socialist bastards!
The citizens in this country have CHOSEN to enact these laws—you know, freedom!—which reflect their cultural heritage. Perhaps if more people here on this blog would investigate rather than castigate the practices of another culture, Americans would generally not be recognized as elitist.
edlovrich—“and as for this all being traditional and long established? The naming committee was established in 1991 and the pertinent law is the Personal Names Act
No. 45 of 17th May 1996”.You are correct in these dates, but regarding its overall historical antecedents, I suggest you conduct more thorough research.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0ds6g1hf
A sample—“A person’s name is at once a central marker of personal identity (including gender identity), a linguistic artifact, and a label used to identify individuals at all levels of social organization. Legal monitoring of personal name choice correlates with aspects of state formation and centralization.
The Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Nor- way) each implemented legislation on personal names between 1828 and 1923. Each country’s laws have subsequently been revised several times. In general, the original name laws in the Nordic countries assume an ethnically homogeneous population and treat names as part of the national language. Recent revisions have attempted to take into account increasing immigration and multiculturalism. Changes in family structures and attitudes (for example, women’s name changes at marriage, policies regarding children of unmarried parents) are also reflected in name law revisions.
Iceland is known for an extremely successful policy of linguistic purism. The folk belief that the language has remained unchanged since the country was settled in the 9th century ad is central to Icelandic national identity. Many Icelanders are proud of the conser- vatism of their vocabulary and the morphological complexity of their language, with three grammatical genders, four cases, and myriad inflectional classes.
One aspect of Icelandic purism is a historically strict policy on personal names. From 1952 until 1995, foreigners who applied for Icelandic citizenship were obliged to take Icelandic names. In the early 20th century, after some debate (see Willson 2002), Iceland decided to depart from the dominant European trend of adopting fixed surnames and maintain the patronymic system; adoption of new surnames was forbidden after 1925.”
It would appear that the legislation in question was borne out of a unique cultural context, one that the majority of Icelanders apparently throughly embrace.Ultimately, it’s their own freaking business.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 1924 hrs
Recess,
Naturally, Iceland does not need our opinion about their backwards, socialist, naming gestapo, however,
it makes for a great lesson on the kind of life interference, and privacy invasion we will get when we leave the socialist liberals in charge.
It should serve as a warning to countries that value freedom of choice….and just how big, and stupid, government can get.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 1927 hrs
greencarman,
Iceland is known for an extremely successful policy of linguistic purism.
Do you know who else had a “successful policy of linguistic purism”? Socialist Germans in the 1930’s.
So we are going to romanticize this kind of policy today…because why?
In historic context, that idea has been, at the very least, controversial.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 1941 hrs
And… there’s the Nazi card. Ladies and gentlemen, Kevin Scheunemann. He’ll be here all week. Try the veal.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 03, 2013 at 2324 hrs
Really, Mr. Schuenemann? Equating Icelandic tradition to the Third Reich?
Please read slowly…“Many Icelanders are proud of the conservatism of their vocabulary and the morphological complexity of their language, with three grammatical genders, four cases, and myriad inflectional classes.”
They are not conducting gruesome medical experiments, or working toward the extermination of a group of people.
Rather, Icelanders have their own version of “freedom of choice” when it comes to a part of their heritage, something that you claim to uphold, but in reality you’re nothing but a charlatan.Your ignorance of “linguistic purism” is astounding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism_in_English
If anything, this concept ought to be in your wheelhouse—linguistic purism may involve religious or quasi-religious fundamentalism and a return to linguistic authenticity. Closely related languages tend to mix; thus, a way to prevent it is to employ different writing or spelling systems. For example, Yiddish, closely related to German, uses the Hebrew alphabet instead of the Latin alphabet, and therefore maintains its separateness. In the Roman Catholic Church, some linguistic purists even call forth the exclusive use of Latin for ceremonies, citing tradition.So linguistic purism has everything to do with culture, and nothing to do with Hitler, Mengali, Marx, or even Stalin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 2333 hrs
“My point it’s not the business of the government to decide which names are acceptable and which are not.”
The people of Iceland think differently, Mr. Pelican Pants. In this specific case, who are we to judge their own preferences? How is this decision ultimately affecting YOUR freedom?’
Remember this next time some dumb-ass American says, “Other countries need to be more like us. Why? Um, I don’t know.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2013 at 2338 hrs
greencarman,
I laugh when “pride” is brought out in talking about socialist countries.
I’ve sat and listened to several Kiwanis members who have toured Cuba, Russia, and China. When you ask a pointed question about the poor condition of a social institution (from the long term destruction of socialist policies)...do you know the answer one gets? The people caught in the socialism are a “proud” people.
“Pride” is a cover for the ailments, and destruction, of socialism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 0737 hrs
They are not conducting gruesome medical experiments, or working toward the extermination of a group of people.
No they are not. It is, however, a clever way to be racist without getting the stigma, by calling it linguistic purism. How many Islamics will give up their identity to a foreign religious law? Pretty smart, really.
“Pride” is a cover for the ailments, and destruction, of socialism.
Oh puhleaze Kevin, give it a rest. This is exactly the sort of thing that is a law from religious roots designed for secular gain. Exactly what you complain about not having most in the US, only you are arguing on the liberal, ‘ban religious influence’ in Gov’t side. GCM is exactly correct on the where the roots of the law comes from.
Call Scandinavians cleverly racist for these laws, but it has nothing to do with Socialism. The comparison with Hitler Germany is even dumber. Though Hitler believed Scandinavia to be the original source of Aryan superiority, the root meaning of Aryan comes from Sanskrit and refers to Indo-Europeans, whatever they were. Aryanism is not prevalent in Scandinavia today, whatever The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo might have made you believe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 0828 hrs
Tuerqas,
So you find my liberal tactics, objectionable?
(Super irony alert) If I’ve mastered the use of bankrupt liberal political tactics, I find myself “proud” of that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 0912 hrs
“So you find my liberal tactics, objectionable?”
And there’s the ‘using leftist tactics against themselves’ line we all know and love!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1044 hrs
Whoops, forgot to close tags.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1045 hrs
That should do it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1046 hrs
Or not, lol.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1047 hrs
Every time Kevin crosses a line or goes to far or says something especially outrageous, he plays the “I’m just copying liberal tactics” card. Nothing new here, Major.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1051 hrs
VA,
For giggles, where, exactly, did I “cross the line”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1114 hrs
Indeed greencarman. Also remember your principle the next time someone suggests the United States needs to be more like some other countries.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1355 hrs
Indeed greencarman. Also remember your principle the next time someone suggests the United States needs to be more like some other countries.
Aaach! That is what else I wanted to say. Thank you BVBB.
Kevin, it is not so much that you crossed a line. If you’ll excuse the presumption, VAP I think you just said it inaccurately. I think what he meant Kevin, and certainly how I feel, is that you were once again caught espousing one of the liberal tags that you claim to hate so much. It has nothing to do with tactics.
You believe religion should have; how do I put it, some say, or some place, in Government. I believe your most common meme is ‘how liberals are systematically eradicating religion through Gov’t’ when all you want is equal or free voice. This is an example of Christians with a voice in Gov’t. It is an example of a law made by people you would want in your Government only now it seems you don’t want it. Hiding behind your ‘using the liberal playbook’ is a meaningless statement.
If you need it put that way, the line you crossed was coming out against a religious(christian at that) based law even though you always shout down all people who do not want any religion coloring their laws, and then you were still against it once you were told the law’s origins. If you were using the ‘liberal playbook’, it was not against liberal atheists, it was against religious folk like you claim to be and it makes you look silly/hypocritical.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1558 hrs
Tuerqas.
So I cannot discriminate and criticize certain religious thought, I dislike, like liberalism?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1609 hrs
“No they are not. It is, however, a clever way to be racist without getting the stigma, by calling it linguistic purism. How many Islamics will give up their identity to a foreign religious law? Pretty smart, really.”
Tuerqas, with all due respect, racism has NOTHING to do with Icelanders preference to preserve their heritage. Ultimately, Iceland has developed a language policy where English and Iceland is able to coexist each for their own purpose in society—one as a language of identity and the other as a tool for participation in the global marketplace.
I would imagine there are Americans who insist that English be the exclusive language written and spoken, yet recognize that people will converse in their native tongue in public settings. People who come to our country are expected to abide by our customs, and learning and understanding English is one of those clear-cut expectations. Icelanders are no different in this endeavor in that they insist their citizens, as well as foreigners, to respect their traditions, regardless of their own personal preferences.
The emphasis of linguistic purism in Iceland is to maintain the structure of its official language. However, it does NOT mean they are unwilling to keep their language up to date by adapting to technological or social changes. When introducing words for new or modern concepts, for example, Icelanders reintroduce old words that have a similar meaning or are in the same semantic field. In addition, Icelanders do NOT object to the teaching of different languages in their school systems; rather, they require students to learn English, Danish, and a third language of their choosing (if they plan on attending college).
So it’s not like Icelanders are seeking to purge foreign languages from their country; rather, they are simply finding ways to keep a tradition alive—one that is seemingly wholeheartedly endorsed by its population. My question is, how is this tradition curtailing freedom?
“So you find my liberal tactics, objectionable?”
No, Mr. Schuenemann, we find your ignorance objectionable, especially with your insistence that liberalism (and conservatism) are religions.
BVBigBro—“Also remember your principle the next time someone suggests the United States needs to be more like some other countries.”The adhering to this principle depends on the context, my friend. But I’ll keep your advice in mind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1626 hrs
No, Mr. Schuenemann, we find your ignorance objectionable, especially with your insistence that liberalism (and conservatism) are religions
So we should ignore history when socialists and linguistic purism have come together to stomp on basic human rights?
I should check with you first, before pointing out crimes of past socialists thought.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1632 hrs
I’d agree with BVBigBro’s comment in #28, but with the clarification that I think it’s important for all countries, America or otherwise, to be able to look around with open eyes and honestly consider other perspectives. The fact that I’ve done a lot of traveling abroad has certainly given me a better informed perspective than I had when I was younger and I’m grateful for that. (I don’t, for the record, think travel is the only way to do that. A well-considered cross-section of books can do much the same.)
Americans have a unique quality of being able to know little about the world around us because we’re such a hegemon in all capacities that we don’t really know what it’s like to *need* other countries. If you go to Europe, for instance, you’ll hear a lot of American music, see a lot of American TV shows and movies, and hear a fair bit about America on the news. They encounter American ideas and perspectives on a daily basis. Some they’ve adopted, some they haven’t - but it’s not for lack of awareness.
But what does the average American know about Norway, other than skiing and goofy sweaters? About Sweden, other than meatballs, the bikini team, and IKEA? About Iceland… well, really anything about Iceland? Maybe they’ll make an awkward volcano joke? And that’s only if they pay attention to the news.
My annoyance with Joe American is precisely what GCM has outlined; Joe loudly espouses that, on the topic of the day, America’s the best, but he can’t present a rational argument as to why. It’s just a bunch of reflexive jingoism, the argumentative equivalent of a parent’s “because I said so.” It’s the kind of blind pride we used to mock Soviet leaders for having. Everything Soviet was the greatest, therefore everything not Soviet is not the greatest - facts be damned.
If I ask one of my Norwegian friends if they think their health care system is better than ours, they’ll be sheepish (humility is a rigidily-enforced social convention among Scandinavians, almost to a fault). But if they have an answer and if it’s yes, they’ll give you concrete reasons to support their opinions. I assure you they won’t tell you it’s because Norway is the greatest country on earth. That’s just not how Scandinavians think. They are extremely proud (and yes, protective) of their individual cultures and way of life - not because they think those customs are the best but because those customs are theirs.
In other words, Joe’s a lot like how Kevin presents himself; maybe knows some facts, but lacks the broader awareness and knowledge to properly contextualize those facts and draw reasonable conclusions from them. Instead, we get some back-of-the-cereal-box nonsense about Nazis and socialism and how all liberals supposedly think.
So really, to come full circle. The pros of Iceland’s naming laws are that they help to preserve Icelandic traditions and keep kids from being saddled with potentially goofy names. The con is that it potentially limit parents’ freedom to name their kids. I see reasonable arguments on both sides, but I don’t think the “pros” are a bunch of Nazi-esque freedom haters any more than I think the “cons” are a bunch of lawless anarchists. And the bigger question is, as an American, why the hell would it matter to me what they decide?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 04, 2013 at 1717 hrs
And the bigger question is, as an American, why the hell would it matter to me what they decide?
As a lesson of what NOT to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 1722 hrs
In Mr. Scheunemann’s world, there is only one type of freedom…American made. Everything else is a farce. Well, sir, the people in Iceland have made a choice, a conscious decision, to exercise their freedom in a manner they deem appropriate. Who are you to judge in this specific case? How does it personally impact your freedom?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2013 at 2220 hrs
greencarman,
Like I said…there is not much we can do over the Iceland socialist abusing this 15 year old.
It only serves as a warning for us, just how abusive, even what is a seemingly minor socialist policy can be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2013 at 0900 hrs
“Like I said…there is not much we can do over the Iceland socialist abusing this 15 year old.”
You truly do not have a clue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2013 at 1252 hrs
greencarman,
It’s one thing to have a strong sense of “linguistic purism”...it’s a whole different thing to empower a government gestapo forcing a 15 year old to surrender her name.
It’s the difference between persuasion and force. OR a free society, or a tyrannical society.
A lesson on why socialism should be avoided.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2013 at 1526 hrs
“it’s a whole different thing to empower a government gestapo forcing a 15 year old to surrender her name.”
The government of Iceland was chosen by the people. The majority of citizens there decided on this process. A lesson on why you oppose freedom.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2013 at 2137 hrs
So if a pop culture trend convinced the government that only red was an acceptable fashion color, all other colors were banned…that would be acceptable in your world?
Taking away someone’s choice on issues where others are not harmed by that choice, is not free society. It is the very definition of tyranny.
Besides, people rarely see the unintended consequences of smothering government policy.
I bet if you took a poll in Iceland, it would favor this oppressed 15 year old.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2013 at 0803 hrs
People who come to our country are expected to abide by our customs, and learning and understanding English is one of those clear-cut expectations.
Or spanish, right?
Your argument against racism is fine, really. My family is half Scandinavian. I know what racism looks like. It is historically provable that the more homogenous a population, the more institutionalized the racism. Liberal unthinkers in the US are so invested in framing their beliefs of what racism is around what Rep/Cons believe and then calling that racism, that many have no idea what racism is anymore. Don’t tell me you have fallen into that category. Scandinavians are among the most racist people in the western world and what is more, many of them will admit it, though they will still call it national pride more often than not.
If you wish to assign nothing but the most noble possibilities to any and all european actions, that will continue to be your prerogative. As it will be mine to think you are somewhat of a dope for doing so.
Again, Kevin, it is your ignorance that is bothersome, offensive, etc. Socialism has nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing. Whatever rationale you want to assign for this law, being socialist or having socialist tendencies is just not the reason. That line of reasoning has no logical basis. You hold on to it simply to not admit that you are wrong. Good job.
But what does the average American know about Norway, other than skiing and goofy sweaters?
My annoyance with Joe American is precisely what GCM has outlined; Joe loudly espouses that, on the topic of the day, America’s the best, but he can’t present a rational argument as to why.
Huh, what? So Kevin is now average Joe? Well, I guess there is some logic to that. There are definitely two average Joes in the US today, though, and Joe one and Joe two will vehemently agree with me, even if they don’t know what vehemently means. That average Joe Republican believes that America (at least according to their interpretation of the constitution) is the best, even when it isn’t, I would agree. Then there is average Joe Democrat who thinks America is among the worst. Our gun laws are the worst, our foreign interventionist policies, our pollution, our labor laws, our racism, our freedom to name our kid Oranjelo, heck even our constitution all suck. They tend to believe anything from Europe is the best, or at least better. Oh, but let me guess: They all think they are above average for thinking this. RS, do you believe that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2013 at 0900 hrs
Again, Kevin, it is your ignorance that is bothersome, offensive, etc. Socialism has nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing. Whatever rationale you want to assign for this law, being socialist or having socialist tendencies is just not the reason. That line of reasoning has no logical basis. You hold on to it simply to not admit that you are wrong. Good job.
I could not disagree more. HOW a government carries out a law makes a big difference.
Socialists tend to be more rigid, allow less freedom of choice, tend to use more terms like “fines”, “punishment”, and “imprisonment” when promulgating bureaucratic rules in carrying out a law like Obamacare. The devil is in the details on the bureaucratic rules promulgation on laws like this. (Instead of an outright ban on unapproved names, what about a tax credit incentive for “approved” names?)
Socialists, historically, are abusive and evil when it comes to freedom of choice, when they have this kind of power.
I could talk about CFL light bulbs, or new phosphorus regulation for sewer plants as prime example, just today, of the socialist evil that goes on behind the scenes in government.
I hate to say this, but your statement about my ignorance is not very smart.
You ignore the unilateral bureaucratic rules promulgation behind the scenes, which makes all the difference in HOW a law is carried out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2013 at 0944 hrs
Oooh, for a moment there we ditched the italics.
Of course Tuerqas, there’s a certain self-loathing component among the Democratic Party that I’ll never fully understand. I don’t have much use for them either.
Too many people cheerlead and too few people think critically.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 07, 2013 at 1323 hrs
Tuerqas—“I know what racism looks like.”
You could have surprised me. One could make the assumption that the Icelandic government is discriminatory in their naming policy, but any legislative policy will have an element of discrimination, i.e. a preference for one group over another group. Racism has NOTHING to do with this matter—the person suing the government is a native (white) Icelander. The population in this country is almost entirely Icelandic, descended from original settlers, who came chiefly from Norway (with a mixture of Scots and Irish). I fail to see how a policy crafted by the Icelandic people is inherently racist to their own citizens who have been there for generations. Perhaps if this naming policy was applied to foreigners who had children in that country, then your position has legitimacy.
Tuerqas—“If you wish to assign nothing but the most noble possibilities to any and all european actions, that will continue to be your prerogative. As it will be mine to think you are somewhat of a dope for doing so.”Strawman. I provided a historical overview regarding the Icelandic naming policy. I did not offer commentary regarding whether this policy is “noble” in nature, or even that European actions are “better” or “worse” compared to America actions. You get bent out of shape when people attribute statements that you never made, yet feel compelled to engage in that same behavior on occasion.
Tuerqas—“It is historically provable that the more homogenous a population, the more institutionalized the racism.”
Care to provide evidence to back up this assertion? I would be interested how you came up with this conclusion.
Regarding whether Icelanders are homogeneous, here is an interesting, although dated, article from a biological perspective.http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/08_00/Icelanders.shtml
Tuerqas-“Scandinavians are among the most racist people in the western world…”An opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. The same argument could be made about Africans, Americans, and Muslims. What’s your point?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2013 at 2025 hrs
“Socialists tend to be more rigid, allow less freedom of choice, tend to use more terms like “fines”, “punishment”, and “imprisonment” when promulgating bureaucratic rules in carrying out a law like Obamacare.”
Kevin, here is a section of text from a certain act of Congress. Please tell me, in your opinion, if this act was authored by socialists:
“And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute [...] then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 0301 hrs
Major,
Of course, you know that “clause” expired March 3,1801.
Socialist tendencies can crop up anywhere, even with the early sessions of Congress, and even with Republicans. Vigilance is the price we pay for freedom. It was true in 1798, it is still true today.
If anyone is paying any attention to freedom these days, the biggest assault on freedom, choice, and liberty is flowing from liberalism and the Democratic Party.
The section you acknowledge is “child’s play” next to the socialist Obamacare rules promulgation that will turn innocent citizens into criminals.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 0717 hrs
Think we’re going to have to disagree here, Kevin. Not in regards to current assaults on liberty, which are quite real, but on your historical/cultural worldview, which seems to boil down to “SOCIALISM = BAD = SOCIALISM”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1134 hrs
Racism has NOTHING to do with this matter—the person suing the government is a native (white) Icelander.
GCM, are you saying this anecdote is representative of what the law means and it is how it relates to all Icelanders and potential Icelanders? If not, then why are you representing it in this manner?
I will agree that much law has a level of discrimination to it.
An opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. The same argument could be made about Africans, Americans, and Muslims. What’s your point?
Actually, no it couldn’t. Africans and Muslim nations are not part of the western world. It includes Europe, US, Canada, Australia, and other countries with majority European populations. You are right, though, it is opinion. There are certainly vastly different forms of racism with very different levels of destructive capability to a society.
The main argument I would make is that homogenousness of population is commonly a good proof in itself for a national (not tribal) feeling of superiority. Often, superiority is not always even identified as racism(Nazi brand excluded), rather it is called nationalism. I would argue that the Gov’t of a homogenous population that makes laws to protect that homogenosity is practising racism. We apparently disagree, what’s new?
Socialists, historically, are abusive and evil when it comes to freedom of choice, when they have this kind of power.
And you think this law is abusive, evil, and has the intent to curtail freedoms? We disagree, too.
I hate to say this, but your statement about my ignorance is not very smart.
Don’t hate it, own it. Sometimes I am flat out wrong, just ask fu. I’ll take your questioning of my intelligence under advisement if you will take the time to realize that any christian based laws will always be at least equally discriminatory. Think about it. Any christian based law will by definition be discriminatory against every other religion. Always(and likely a lot of christian sects as well). In that sense at least(that does not include school indoctrination, etc.), haven’t you then been wrong about liberals this whole time? Aren’t they correct to be against christian based rules, regs, or laws?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1138 hrs
Major,
SOCIALISM = BAD = SOCIALISM.
You mean Cuba, China, Eastern Bloc, Former Soviet Union, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Chicago are not proof enough of that equation?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1240 hrs
Kevin, look a little more closely at the second half of the equation and remember what Tuerqas said about geese and birds a few weeks back. You are the living embodiment of that old proverb, “When all you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1736 hrs
Major,
I can come up with cliches as well:
Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
Experience is the best teacher. (My abuse by socialists at UWM clarified the evil of socialism for me.)
The road to hell is paid w/good intentions.
You can not be a politician and become rich w/out being a crook.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1809 hrs
“GCM, are you saying this anecdote is representative of what the law means and it is how it relates to all Icelanders and potential Icelanders? If not, then why are you representing it in this manner?“Z
Tuerqas, I am simply saying that a citizen of Iceland objects to a law made by her government. She believes the law is discriminatory. The law is NOT being applied to a different group of people, it is being applied to natives. You are misapplying the term “racism” to this situation—the legislation impacts a white Icelander. Had this law impacted a person from a different racial or ethnic group, then your claim that racism is involved is legitimate.
“I would argue that the Gov’t of a homogenous population that makes laws to protect that homogenosity is practising racism.”Tuerqas, Iceland is seeking to protect their language. Their policy has the full support of the citizens. Iceland is NOT denying non-Icelanders the opportunity to speak their native tongue. They are NOT excluding foreign languages in their schools. They are NOT opposed to becoming fluent in English. If you want to say their cultural practices are racist, be my guest. Dare I say that the Icelanders are putting forth an agenda that is conservative in nature—if an original language is influenced by another language, those past connections will be lost/forgotten.
The end of civilization as we know it? Absolutely not. A loss of culture? Absolutely yes. Racist ideology? Hell no.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 2247 hrs
Is trying to keep your culture separate or pure, racist? If a white male in America tries to separate anything as white male only it absolutely is defined as racism towards blacks and discrimination against women. I don’t think your opinion of Icelanders is wrong or invalid, but I do think it is colored by the love affair that liberal Americans have for anything European.
The US can’t even enforce its most basic immigration laws like requiring the learning of English, because we will disenfranchise all of those illegal immigrants that never had to learn English and thus are not entitled to the rights of American citizens. That’s because that whole requirement is racist by liberal definition. Apply the same principle to a European law and what do we get:
‘Racist? Hell no.’
“But then is it racist to require that potential Americans and/or pardoned illegals learn English?”
‘Hell yes.’
“Isn’t that a double stan-”
‘Hell no! You are deucedly stupid, aren’t you chap?’I can come up with cliches as well:
Does that cliche’ reciting ability invalidate Major Booris’ proverb, Kevin? I agree with his and yours. Do you? It sounds like you believe in yours. Your commentary suggests you too believe them all, good for you. Hint: If you wanted to diminish his proverb describing you, you would have picked cliche’s that you did not believe in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 0855 hrs
Tuerqas—“Is trying to keep your culture separate or pure, racist?”
Not on its face. Each situation is different. Taking measures to maintain a cultural practice, while allowing other cultural practices to continue, is not racist. The naming policy in Iceland is meant to preserve an aspect of their culture they deem vital to their existence; they are not deporting foreigners for exercising their right to write or speak their own language or prohibiting any and all foreign languages from their country.
“but I do think it is colored by the love affair that liberal Americans have for anything European.” Are you suggesting that I fit this description? Regardless, the only thing colored is your love affair in believing that liberal Americans prefer European values to American values.
Tuerqas—“The US can’t even enforce its most basic immigration laws like requiring the learning of English, because we will disenfranchise all of those illegal immigrants that never had to learn English and thus are not entitled to the rights of American citizens. That’s because that whole requirement is racist by liberal definition.”Requiring prospective citizens to learn English is NOT racist. People who embrace this position are sadly mistaken. If I planned on emigrating to another nation, and as a condition of becoming a citizen I had to pass a test that constituted understanding their language, then I would do so willingly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1907 hrs
Regardless, the only thing colored is your love affair in believing that liberal Americans prefer European values to American values.
Heh, touche’.
Requiring prospective citizens to learn English is NOT racist.
I agree, and yet, Dems have their followers trained to believe this is racist discrimination so completely that most Gov’t interactive functions have a choice to be done in Spanish at the total cost of billions to create and millions to maintain. Do you agree with me there or do you think there is something else at work here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1104 hrs
GCM said
Taking measures to maintain a cultural practice, while allowing other cultural practices to continue, is not racist
.
While on its face this would indeed NOT be racist, there is something that troubles me with the way the law is written, almost to the point of being insidious. To wit:
Personal Names Act
No. 45 of 17th May 1996Section V. Rights of Persons of Foreign Origin regarding Names.
Article 10....If either of a child’s parents is or was a foreign national, the child may be given one forename and/or family name that does not conform to the provisions of Articles 5-7 if it can be demonstrated that the foreign name is valid in the home country of the foreign parent. In all cases, however the child shall bear one forename that conforms to Article 5.
Let’s examine the case of a Pole, the second largest nationality in Iceland behind natives:A Polish male relocates to Iceland and marries a native citizen, their child MAY have a traditional Polish first name and the fathers surname, but must also havea first or middle name that conforms with the law. No big deal at this point,the Polish heritage is maintained and the child, if male for instance, could be named after the father, let;s presume Wladislaw.
Now, this child, a citizen of Iceland, grows and marries another Icelander of Polish descent. NEITHER is or ever was a foreign national, and there is NO option other than to name any children from this union in accordance with the naming law. This second generation loses the right to maintain a national heredity other than Icelandic.
Perhaps it is just me, but this sort of slow instillation of homogeneity is even worse than making it a flagrant policy from the outset.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1452 hrs
Tuerqas—“so completely that most Gov’t interactive functions have a choice to be done in Spanish at the total cost of billions to create and millions to maintain.”
I need context, please. What programs? What functions? I’m not saying I disagree with your premise, I just need more information from you, that’s all.
Good stuff, edalovrich.“This second generation loses the right to maintain a national heredity other than Icelandic.”
From what I have read on the matter, not necessarily. It is permissible to take the family name of one’s spouse; one may either adopt the son or the daughter name. For instance, if Mary Wladislaw marries Jon Jonsson she may be called, Mary Wladislaw, Mary Jonsson, or Mary Jonsdottir. The children then take on these names.
In addition, a foreign-born national who receives Icelandic citizenship is not required to change their name. The same applies to their children. However, foreign nationals may assume an Icelandic name as their first or middle name if they choose.
Regarding foreigners in Iceland, here is some information. It would appear that few foreigners work to become citizens of Iceland.
http://www.icenews.is/2009/01/20/foreigners-in-iceland-an-interesting-picture-emerges/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 0036 hrs
GCM:
You are correct in regards to foreign nationals, and those who attain Icelandic citizenship. However, for those born as Icelandic citizens, they MUST comply with the name law and so, any vestiges of ancestry are erased beginning with the second naive-born generation.
As far as immigration to Iceland and attainment of Icelandic citizenship, I cannot speak to the reason other than making guesses, but could it be that immigrants are NOT pursuing citizenship for this ver reason, at least partially?
It reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line:
“I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 0203 hrs
that should be native born, not naive born…...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 0204 hrs
Really GCM? Call for unemployment, call for school aid forms, call planned parenthood, call for any information needed for a federal program where you get an answering machine. I call the Blood center of WI and I can make an appt in spanish by pressing 2. Outside of calling specific elected official offices, can you tell me one federal program that does not have a spanish choice?
I agree, good stuff Edalovrich.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1138 hrs
This entire exchange proves one thing:
Life, viewpoints, and experience of citizens is too diverse to restrict people to a “one size fits all” central, socialist, gestapo, naming list.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1220 hrs
“This entire exchange proves one thing:
Life, viewpoints, and experience of citizens is too diverse to restrict people to a “one size fits all” central, socialist, gestapo, naming list.”
But not diverse enough that every single political, cultural, and economic problem throughout history can’t be blamed on some aspect of socialism, of course.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1524 hrs
But not diverse enough that every single political, cultural, and economic problem throughout history can’t be blamed on some aspect of socialism, of course
.
That’s debatable.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1614 hrs
Then you’re more open-minded than I had given you credit for, Kevin. I’m legitimately glad to say that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1649 hrs
Then you’re more open-minded than I had given you credit for, Kevin. I’m legitimately glad to say that
.
I know that I’m at least as open minded as your average Obamacare, rules promulgating, bureaucrat.
It will probably be interesting if you think that is good or bad.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1701 hrs
Really, Tuerqas? Billions of dollars to create and millions to maintain…a recorded message asking people if they want to listen to directions in English or in Spanish to access information. Please show me the financial records regarding this hideous boondoggle.
Or, better yet, contact the organization known as English First, which considers itself to be a national, non-profit grassroots lobbying organization whose goals include making English the official language of the United States, eliminating ineffective multilingual policies, and giving every child the opportunity to learn English (English First).
Sounds like racism to me
edalovich—“However, for those born as Icelandic citizens, they MUST comply with the name law and so, any vestiges of ancestry are erased beginning with the second naive-born generation.”The regulations about names have become increasingly flexible if there is foreign blood. A child with one foreign parent may be given one foreign name. Many Icelandic-born children’s names are actually approved. Traditionally in Iceland, these names became important for questions of inheritance and marriage and family relationships.
edalovich—“I cannot speak to the reason other than making guesses, but could it be that immigrants are NOT pursuing citizenship for this very reason, at least partially?”It’s about the economy. Iceland was hit especially hard by the ongoing late-2000s recession, because of the failure of its banking system and a subsequent economic crisis. Thousands of Icelanders have moved from the country. Foreigners have steered clear because of a lack of meaningful employment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 12, 2013 at 0006 hrs
Sounds like racism to me.
No that’s a dog whistle that you are hearing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 12, 2013 at 1355 hrs
Smeety, had you been paying attention to the gist of the conversation, that statement to which you refer was meant as sarcasm?
Anything positive to add to the discussion besides your inane and irrelevant comments?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 12, 2013 at 1607 hrs
Really, Tuerqas? Billions of dollars to create and millions to maintain…a recorded message asking people if they want to listen to directions in English or in Spanish to access information. Please show me the financial records regarding this hideous boondoggle.
I don’t usually have to spell out implications to you, but if you want to play stupid, I will oblige this time. After looking in to it a bit, I was thinking small.
Coupled with this estimate, but not included in their estimates is the cost of bilingual forms used by the majority of hospitals, government agencies, schools, insurance companies and large corporate businesses. This figure has been estimated at costing an additional 10 plus billion per year, with some estimates pushing 15 billion.
Despite not having a firm figure, market research firms from 2005 to the present place the figure in the 20-24 billion dollar range for the years 2009 & 2010.Every last form, including tax forms, must be printed in spanish and english. Now the .pdfs on the internet are not too expensive to put up and maintain, but you can request any form the Gov’t provides in Spanish. The number of food nutrition labels required to have spanish on them is increasing as well so private companies are paying costs too. The whole instruction manual in 3-10 languages on most ‘assembly required’ items was not initially voluntary either. A regulation forced companies to do that. They made it a bit more efficient by just printing all of the languages on one form for simple assemblies, but their were costs involved in that.
The only semi-coherent argument I have heard against naming gay ‘marriage’ a civil union in legal terms and instituting full rights afforded to married people was that it would cost billions to change all of the existing law documents to include civil union as equivalent to marriage. There are only estimates for the cost of that, but I buy it as an argument against instituting civil unions rather than amending the definition of marriage.
What you are trying to say is that these little things don’t cost significant amounts of money in a bureaucracy the size of the US? 12 billion is a very small wart on the ass of the budget. The budget has, unfortunately, a whole lot of warts. When is it significant? Of course, you could maintain the position that all of the programs we have in place to convenience spanish speakers doesn’t really cost that much. That would be a grasp of reality debate, though, IMO.
...whose goals include making English the official language of the United States…
How radical and racist to have a goal that is already law. It was instituted for very sound federal reasons. Among others, so that there was just one legal language. To have a system of law there has to be one language as different languages have different meanings for the same words. You say it was meant with sarcasm, but it sure sounds like you would not believe any cost numbers they give unless it already conforms with your belief that costs are minimal.
Names on the other hand, have nothing to do (that I can think of) with lingual purity as they are not part of your law or your dictionary. However, if that is an acceptable non-racist/discriminatory use of law to you(limiting names), don’t you think changing the meaning of a word steeped in your laws is a bad thing? It could change your law wihtout any vote or legislation. Sorry, I guess I don’t remember for sure if you are for or against gay ‘marriage’. If you are against it, I beg your pardon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2013 at 1139 hrs
Tuerqas…
“I don’t usually have to spell out implications to you, but if you want to play stupid, I will oblige this time. After looking in to it a bit, I was thinking small.”
Please re-read comment 60. Recall that YOU simply said about the costs involved when people call for forms, not the forms themselves, nor the bilingual requirements on food labels, nor bilingual directions for a host of products. My statement addressed this particular point. Yes, you talked about “gov’t interactive functions” in comment 55, but to me you were vague. That’s why I asked for clarification and you provided it. Now, of course there is a large cost in this overall process, not just in the one part that you seemingly were focused on in comment 60.
Regarding the printing of bilingual forms, the United States has a well-documented history as an appropriate measure to assimilate immigrants. The Continental Congress printed a number of documents in German. The Articles of Confederation were printed in English and German. In 1837 Pennsylvania law required schools to issue textbooks in English and German. California printing the first state constitution in Spanish after it was admitted as a state.
We all know our demographics are changing in the United States, and current laws reflect that change. To me, the costs are reasonable, as do members of Congress, who reflect the will of the people (supposedly).
It would appear that people in our country who speak a language other than English DESIRE that their children learn our language as quickly as possible via participation in English immersion programs, but they also want to feel included in our culture. The Latino voting bloc is powerful, and I think that (D)’s, and (R)’s especially considering how they fared in the last election, are mindful of their needs.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/first-bilingual-census-form-will-make-it-easier-latinos-participate
“unless it already conforms with your belief that costs are minimal.” No, that is NOT my belief.And, how did “gay marriage” ever enter this conversation when I never even mentioned it???
“Names on the other hand, have nothing to do (that I can think of) with lingual purity as they are not part of your law or your dictionary. However, if that is an acceptable non-racist/discriminatory use of law to you(limiting names), don’t you think changing the meaning of a word steeped in your laws is a bad thing? It could change your law wihtout any vote or legislation.”I’m sorry, I don’t know what you are trying to get at. I think I know, but I rather have you clarify. Thank you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 15, 2013 at 2233 hrs
Please re-read comment 60…
Yes, I know I specifically stated words only regarding phone messages and did not go in to other details of the entire federal program supporting the (right?...no) preference of a few (legal) spanish speakers to not learn english, but yes, I figured readers would understand I meant the whole program. Sorry I was not clear enough. The difference between past printings of foreign languages and today are that those printings were given to legal immigrants and given to them as part of the assimilation and immigration process while they were still going through it. They were not printed up and handed out at any federal offices(and there weren’t even that many) they were passed out at immigration points.
As I have said before I am pro-amnesty for anyone who comes forward and elects to go through immigration processes(which includes learning enough english to not need all of those Spanish programs). To say that there are many more media outlets and Gov’t offerings overall today is an understatement by orders of magnitude, IMO. Rather than offering everything(forms, internet, spanish speaking employees required at a DOT, etc.) in Spanish, the spanish breadcrumbs should lead to legal immigration. I agree that those forms should be printed in Spanish. However, one could as easily say that there are many more outlets to learning english today too. It should be much less of a burden than it was when German was being printed on a few items.
Gay marriage was my own tangent and it related to legal language being an important reason for some level of lingual purity. If you want to change a law, the legal way is to get the legislature to pass a new law, not change the definition of words already in the current law. To that extent I fully believe some measures of lingual purity are absolutely non-race based common sense.
Names are not part of any legal system. There is not a Barack law that everyone knows means ‘gun free zone’(yet). The legal language will still be ‘no guns’, not no ‘Baracks’. As names do not enter laws or really, IMO, change the meaning of any sentence structures, contexts, etc. of any language, I just don’t see how limiting them is a matter of lingual purity. I don’t deny that there could be something there, but I don’t see it. Whether Icelanders mean it that way or not, it is still equally unfathomable to me that you won’t even admit that the racist implications are there, though you may also see that it is a losing argument to make that admission.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 0819 hrs
oh very intresting topic , i agree with the tuerqas,
Posted by asad on January 30, 2013 at 0454 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 44
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/21/2013 11:09 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).