Should minority languages be exterminated?

Observer   Mon May 10, 2010 10:27 am GMT
It seems that for a State nothing but negatives come from minority languages. The stronger minority languages are, the less the unity of the nation. Places like Spain are plagued by their minorities because they give them too much freedom and recognition, where as places like France, which actively suppresses minority languages, are more unified.

Of course, it gets even worse when you have an environment of PC and democracy. In more authoritarian, un-PC regimes the problem hardly exists (Turkey, Russia, China).

Hence, should minority languages should be actively suppressed?
Matematik   Mon May 10, 2010 10:30 am GMT
While I thought this would be a troll thread, I actually agree. In the UK, Welsh, and Scottish Gaelic are being given increasing autonomy and funding to the extent it is now threatening the union.
Stanmund   Mon May 10, 2010 10:54 am GMT
<<where as places like France, which actively suppresses minority languages, are more unified. >>

France even suppresses majority languages in other countries.

Flemish and German and even Walloon pidjins in Belgium.
German, Italian and Romansch and English in Switzerland.
German and English in Luxembourg,
Catalan and Spanish in Andorra.
English, Amish Dutch, Amish German and native languages in Canada.
English and native languages in Cameroon.
English and Natives languages in New Caladonia.
English and African dialects in Mauritius.
English and native languages in Polynesia.
English and native languages of 'Francophonie' Africa and Asia.
etc etc etc...
Poligloto   Mon May 10, 2010 1:06 pm GMT
It should be left to the free will of their speakers,
Both in Spain (autonomic regions) and France (central government), authorities are imposing a language against the natural flow of social trends.
PARISIEN   Mon May 10, 2010 1:35 pm GMT
<< France, which actively suppresses minority languages >>

- - Once more that stupid urban wiki-legend...

The only political authority in Europe that actively suppress minority languages is Flanders (*), and the suppressed language in this case happens to be French.

Period.



(*) In soon to disappear so-called "Belgium".
Marseillese   Mon May 10, 2010 2:26 pm GMT
Besides French, there exist many other vernacular minority languages of France, both in the metropolitan territory of continental Europe and in the French overseas territories.

Period.


These languages have no official status.

Period.


The 1999 report written for the French government by Bernard Cerquiglini identified 75 languages that would qualify for recognition under the government's proposed ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

Period.
Mallorquí   Mon May 10, 2010 2:29 pm GMT
rep   Mon May 10, 2010 4:17 pm GMT
<<<< France, which actively suppresses minority languages >>

- - Once more that stupid urban wiki-legend...

The only political authority in Europe that actively suppress minority languages is Flanders (*), and the suppressed language in this case happens to be French. >>


It is your legend.Reality is quite otherwise:
LANGUAGE POLICY IN FRANCE
"Besides French, there exist many other vernacular minority languages of France, both in the metropolitan territory of continental Europe and in the French overseas territories. These languages have no official status. The 1999 report[2] written for the French government by Bernard Cerquiglini identified 75 languages that would qualify for recognition under the government's proposed ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Currently, that charter is only signed but not "

"One argument[by whom?] against was the fear of the break-up of France "one and indivisible" leading to the threat of "babelism", "balkanization" and then ethnic separatism if the charter were to be implemented, and that therefore there should be only one language recognised in the French state: the French language. This was also linked to a wider debate about how power should be apportioned between the national and local governments[citation needed].

Another was that in an era where a widely spoken language like French was threatened with becoming irrelevant in the global arena, especially in economic, technical and scientific contexts, officially supporting regional languages was a mere waste of government resources[citation needed].

As an example of what proponents of ratification considered racist and scornful, here is a sample quote from an article in Charlie Hebdo, a well-known satirical journal:

The aborigines are going to be able to speak their patois, oh sorry, their language, without being laughed at. And even keep their accent, that is their beret and their clogs.[cite this quote]
Likewise, President Jacques Chirac, putting an end to the debate, argued that it would threaten "the indivisibility of the Republic," "equality in front of the Law" and "the unity of the French people," since it may end by conferring "special rights to organised linguistic communities."

France, Andorra and Turkey are the only European countries that have not yet signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. This framework entered into force in 1998 and is now nearly compulsory to implement in order to be accepted in the European Union, which implies France would not qualify for EU entry were it to apply for membership now"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France
TOUBON LAW
One broad provision of the law applying to workplaces is that "any document that contains obligations for the employee or provisions whose knowledge is necessary for the performance of one’s work must be written in French." Among other things, this means that computer software developed outside France must have its user interface and instruction manuals translated into French to be legally used by companies in France. The law includes an exception that "these provisions do not apply to documents coming from abroad", but this exception has been interpreted narrowly by the appellate courts. For example in 2006 a French subsidiary of a US company was given a hefty fine for delivering certain highly technical documents and software interfaces to its employees in the English language only, and this was upheld by the appellate court.[3][4]

Another broad provision of the law is that it makes it mandatory for commercial advertisements and public announcements to be given in French. This does not rule out advertisements made in a foreign language: it is sufficient to provide a translation in a footnote. This was justified as a measure for the protection of the consumer. Additionally, product packaging must be in French, though, again, translation in multiple languages can be provided.

A similar restriction, though implemented by primary legislation regulations and not as application of the Loi Toubon, applies to product labeling: product labels should be intelligible and in French, though additional languages may be present.[5] Some linguistic restrictions on product labeling were found to be incompatible with European law,[6] particularly the directives concerning the freedom of movement of goods within the European Union. The French government then issued interpretation notes and amended regulations in order to comply.[7]

In another provision, the law specifies obligations for public legal persons (government administrations, et al.), mandating the use of French in publications, or at least in summaries of publications. In France, it is a constitutional requirement that the public should be informed of the action of the government. Since the official language of France is French, it follows that the French public should be able to get official information in French.

Under the Toubon law, schools that do not use French as the medium of instruction are ineligible for government funding. This includes the Breton language schools of Brittany.
In the mid-1990s, soon after the Toubon Law came into force, two French lobbying groups, the Association pour la Défense de la Langue Française and the L'Avenir de la Langue Française, filed a complaint against Georgia Tech Lorraine, which is a French branch of Georgia Institute of Technology, a large American university. At the time of the complaint, all classes at this Lorraine school were conducted in English, and all course descriptions on its French Internet web site were in English only. The complaint invoked the Toubon Law to demand that the school's web site must be in French because the web site was effectively a commercial advertisement for the school's courses.[13] Although the case was dismissed by the court on a minor legal technicality,[14] and the lobbying groups chose to drop the matter, the school was moved to offer its French website in the French language in addition to English, although classes continued to be in English only.[15]

In 2006 the French subsidiary of the US company General Electric Medical Systems was fined €500,000 plus an ongoing fine of €20,000 per day for not complying with the Toubon law.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toubon_Law
+++   Mon May 10, 2010 5:14 pm GMT
Most brutal language suppression takes place in Flanders, this is a reality no one can deny:

"Linkebeek is a Belgian municipality in Flanders, part of the province of Flemish Brabant, in the bilingual electoral and judicial district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde."
"Francophones make up the majority of the population."
The mayor since 2000 is Damien Thiéry of the Union des Francophones (UF). In 2006, he was re-elected with 86% of the vote. However, Thiéry has not yet been nominated by the Flemish minister Marino Keulen, who has obstructed Thiéry's nomination because Thiery sent convocations in both French and Dutch."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkebeek


Nowhere else in the civilized world would democracy be denied that way because a Mayor uses the language of his voter's majority!

Nowhere but in Flanders.
rep   Mon May 10, 2010 5:53 pm GMT
<<Most brutal language suppression takes place in Flanders, this is a reality no one can deny:
Nowhere else in the civilized world would democracy be denied that way because a Mayor uses the language of his voter's majority!

Nowhere but in Flanders. >>

You are wrong-it's in France:

Perhaps language of voters majority in suburbs of Paris,France is Arabic and language of voters majority in Alsace,France is German,but everywhere in France mayors must speak French only,because language of French republic is French (Loi Toubon).
Official language of Flanders is Dutch,so mayors in Flanders must speak Dutch.
Most of inhabitants of Arlon area,Belgium speak Luxemburgic or Standard German at home ,but all mayors of this area officially speak French only .
English witness   Mon May 10, 2010 6:17 pm GMT
<<Most of inhabitants of Arlon area,Belgium speak Luxemburgic or Standard German at home ,but all mayors of this area officially speak French only >>>

What do you say to that Parisien?

You nasty dirty little greasy French imperialist oliveball.
Don Chicho   Mon May 10, 2010 6:25 pm GMT
">While I thought this would be a troll thread, I actually agree. In the UK, Welsh, and Scottish Gaelic are being given increasing autonomy and funding to the extent it is now threatening the union.<"

Quid pro quo. The U.K. gives them this, and they remain in the Union.


">France, Andorra and Turkey are the only European countries that have not yet signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. This framework entered into force in 1998 and is now nearly compulsory to implement in order to be accepted in the European Union, which implies France would not qualify for EU entry were it to apply for membership now.<"

Turkey is not even in Europe. A small piece may be in (E. Thrace), but this does not qualify them.

">It seems that for a State nothing but negatives come from minority languages. The stronger minority languages are, the less the unity of the nation. Places like Spain are plagued by their minorities because they give them too much freedom and recognition, where as places like France, which actively suppresses minority languages, are more unified.<"

One has to remember that Europe was not always unified into such States, so this history plays a fundamental component. All were (more or less) decentralized. France, in particular was more cohesive than let's say Spain, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom. I think the smaller the state, the more wealthier it'll be rather than a big poor one. As usual balkanization
threatens every country everywhere - Europe is no anomaly.
Baldewin   Mon May 10, 2010 6:29 pm GMT
I guess we should all migrate to Wallonia and refuse to learn French and ask Dutch to be official. Wallonia even funds Dutch-speaking schools. Wait it doesn't. Oops!
What a caricature that Parisian dumbass.
Baldewin   Mon May 10, 2010 6:36 pm GMT
In fascist Wallonia a Flemish political was even thrown out of the city council after being election, by brute force. Children even had to go escorted by their parents to school in front of a booing crowd of Walloons. This would never happen in Flanders where the government even funds francophone schools and libraries (even though it isn't forced to do). But of course the administrative language remains Dutch only here, and that's 'brutal' according to this clown here (who he himself actually comes from a more 'fascist' country, using his terminology).
The only 'brutal thing' is that Flemish don't see their language as inferiour to French, very barbaric of course. But according to francophone brainwashing French is a holy language of angels.
Franco   Mon May 10, 2010 6:36 pm GMT
I don't think the smaller states the richer. That was true in the Middle Ages, but not nowadays in a context of global capitalism. Small country means small market and no possiblity to create big companies that are competitive abroad. US has so many multinationals because it is a big market of 300 millions.