Haven't posted in awhile. Maybe I'll start again. Having been cursed with interesting times and all.
What gets me right now is evidently some Joe in PA has gotten into trouble for posting a sign at his restaurant requesting patrons order in English. I absolutely cannot believe he'd get into trouble for that. Was this not once a free country? If he wants to restrict his business to folks who aren't put off by such a sign, that's his right. The cawing by various lawyers and government officials that his signs "give a feeling of being unwelcome and being excluded" and "discourages customers of certain backgrounds from eating there" is a load of populist mob-rule hooey. Nor do they violate a city ordinance that prohibits discrimination in public accommodation on the basis of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation, as those have nothing to do with language. Indeed, I'd like to know why anyone would expect to be able to order in Russian or Pashtu or Spanish or Chinese or whatever other languages are most common in his neck of the woods in the first place. Complaint over this is the kind of boneheaded nonsense reminds me our country is proceeding to eat itself alive.
To state the obvious, in case anyone is boneheaded enough to miss it: If he or anyone else wants to run their shop in Hebrew or Farsi or Hmong or French, they absolutely have the right to do so. There are plenty of stores in San Francisco without a speck of English anywhere in sight. Is anyone complaining who's worth listening to? Of course not.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Don
I'm too serious
Tell me, tell, me, if you think you know
Labels
- About Me (15)
- aminals (25)
- architecture (3)
- burningman (41)
- ceaseless self-examination (19)
- history (17)
- inchoate entrepreneurialism (2)
- kid stuff (24)
- long unedited essays (22)
- music (4)
- NaNoWriMo (29)
- nanowrimocrastination (3)
- oh my godless (2)
- OMG IM OCD (4)
- people are strange (2)
- people are stupid (11)
- people what matter (18)
- perpetual picture-taking (24)
- politics (67)
- random life events (59)
- random whining (14)
- reading (4)
- San Francisco (11)
- shameless sexism (1)
- short fiction (3)
- short unedited essays (10)
- society (14)
- sports (2)
- thinking too much (9)
- Thursday Thirteen (6)
- travel (53)
- wha-a-atever (25)
- wordless wednesday (6)
- work (34)
- writing (15)
- xmas (13)
18 comments:
I think it's offensive (and I'd be offended by it even as an English speaker), but I don't know if it should be illegal. Lots of things are offensive, and sometimes we just have to deal with them. A good way to deal with this is not to spend money there. I guess I'd want to know if the sign is breaking an actual law and not just some weird stretchy interpretation of a law.
The reason this is offensive mostly has to do with the subtext, and, come on, we all know what it is. "Once America was a place that welcomed everyone, but no more. Fuck you (especially if you're Mexican). Get out."
We don't mind immigrants with money though. I bet you that there's no such sign in any $$$$$ restaurant in New York City.
I don't agree that's the subtext at all. Of course it might be. Maybe it's not apparent to me because I don't think that way. But to me it's the same as if he wants to discourage non-smokers by allowing smoking. His business, who cares.
And when did this country ever really welcome everyone anyway? When our shores were wide open there were huge nativist movements, and discrimination was the norm. It's beginning to look like the contemporary anti-anti-immigrant crowd is creating a good old days myth just like conservatives have tried to do re family values.
I think it would be rather hard to get an order right if the person taking the order only spoke English and the clients were speaking something else. whats pashtu for french fries or even french for french fries? I bet the cost of lunch would go thru the roof if Joe had to hire translators for all the languages that might be spoken in his restaurant. Or multi-lingual servers. How many languages world be required. And how about dialects? Would that be a qualification. Sounds like Joe would have to close up shop. The only person I ever new that spoke more than 5 languages worked for the UN. She made commanded a high price for her gift.
I have to interpret his sign as having a subtext, since it reads "This is America..." However, he probably has a legitimate gripe if customers are routinely holding up the line at his store because it takes them so long to order. The Mexican restaurant we frequent has some non-English-speaking servers, so we usually order by the numbers, (like, a number seven.) Maybe this guy should do something like that to keep from losing business--if there are so many foreigners trying to spend their money there that he had to put up that sign in the first place.
As usual, I'm in the middle.
Like most countries, we have a national language. It's English. If you've got a problem with that and want to get all Canadian about it, that's a separate issue, but for now, that's the official language. We don't put road signs in any other language; I see no reason private business owners should be required to hire staff who speak any other language in order to accomodate non-English speaking customers. Whether that would be a smart business practice is another matter, and I'm not running his business. IMO there should be nothing illegal about informing your customers that your staff can only take orders in English.
But this:
Nor do they violate a city ordinance that prohibits discrimination in public accommodation on the basis of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation, as those have nothing to do with language.
Come on. Ethnicity has "nothing" to do with language? I repeat: come on. The guy says flat out he posted the sign "because of concerns over the debate on immigration reform." He's making a political statement. The subtext is barely even sub.
Nonetheless, I don't feel that not accomodating non-English orders reasonably qualifies as discrimination. I don't feel he's a criminal. Depending on your position on the immigration issue, he may or not be an asshole. Which case: This is America, vote with your wallet.
Well, ethnicity and language may be tied together for him, and if he's all anti-immigrant and his sign is a reflection of it, then maybe he's part jackass. But I still don't see any cause to have a law that's getting broken. It's a business / personal decision and the goody two-shoes and lookie lous need to get a life and quit screwing with someone else's.
To me, ethnicity and language don't tie together much. There's an entire generation of East Indians round here with no accent at all, same for Hispanics, Asians, African-Americans, and Iranians. English is their first language, their ethnicity is whatever it is, and I don't see the latter having anything to do with making a small issue of the former.
There is another hand, though. I have never witnessed a problem at a restaurant caused by a language barrier, except perhaps when there are complaints. Personally I wouldn't bother with such a sign. So maybe his problem is a touch of xenophobia and he's known for it and the locals are using this to get at him. Good people using questionable law to do what they believe to be a good thing. I'm afraid though that this is how tyranny is bred.
Well, ethnicity and language may be tied together for him
I assure you they're also tied together for the illegal immigrants he's targeting.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on the principle of this for all the reasons I mention above. But I think we call this what it is. He's not supporting English as a language. He's trying to let a certain group of people know they're not welcome in his place. He pretty much flat out said so.
But ethnicity and language do tie together--in this case. Here, some customers' use of their mother tongue would reflect ethnicity. That fact isn't altered by the other fact that some "ethnic" people speak fluid, unaccented English.
I don't think the guy broke any laws. He's just kind of stupid, alienating potential customers that way.
-Roy
Zen ol' pal, you are not reading all of my words. I'm not defending the jackass. I'm defending his right to be a jackass. It is an issue of running one's own business, not hurting anyone (except maybe their precious feelings), and free speech.
As always, I am speaking to a situation that most people (judging by the public reaction) feel needs governmental intervention.
A reaction with which I have a natural sympathy.
A reaction with which I have a natural sympathy. (!)
But that doesn't end it, because law is not about sympathy.
Law is about what you shall be compelled to do, or not do. Its application evolves, and the law occasionally evolves to catch up with the new application.
We tell this cunt he cannot put up a sign requesting customers speak English -- a voluntary act, very much unlike having different skin tones -- does it then become our business to tell him he can't tell customers they can't be barefoot, or must (or must not) wear a tie, or mustn't be fed meat on Fridays?
It seems I'm interested in the cases where attempting something good -- suppressing xenophobia, or ridding the street of guns, etc. -- takes us down the path towards tyranny. This is how I'm both a liberal and a conservative, depending how you understand the terms.
some customers' use of their mother tongue would reflect ethnicity
Sure, but we don't know that it would mean anything to the guy. He is evidently frustrated by people who talk to him in something besides English and feels that in America, English is the language to use for business interactions. There is evidence for nothing else. Note he said nothing about what language people should use talking to one another.
He's trying to let a certain group of people know they're not welcome in his place. He pretty much flat out said so.
I don't see the connection so clearly with what he said but maybe that's just me. If he's using language usage as a way effectively to discriminate against the new arrivals, then that explains the reactions. Again, to me, it could be a situation where government doing something good today will set precedence for doing something bad tomorrow.
Turning the tables, if I were to move to an expat section of Shanghai and saw a restaurant had a sign requiring customers order in Chinese, I don't believe I'd be offended. I just wouldn't go until I spoke sufficient Chinese. Same with Spanish in Mexico. Folks down there are a lot less accommodating of English than we are of Spanish, outside the tourist zones.
Oh well, that entire situation is just ridiculous anyway. He was just mad, besides being a poor businessman, and he composed a sign that was obviously insulting, with the "this is America" thing, and I can't even imagine how ordering in Spanish isn't a self-limiting exercise in the first place--I mean, if someone ordered food from me in Spanish, all they would get would be blank looks--and the Spanish speakers must also speak English (or how did they read the sign?) so what's their game? Then there is some goofy ordinance? Is it against the law to say, "This is America?" or "Order in English?" And the other question is, does the guy have really really good food or something? Or is he the only place within ten blocks to get lunch?
But the core of the matter, did he break a law, no. I still can't see it. He's rude to point it out like he did, but how hard would it be to memorize how to say your favorite lunch in another language? I'll bet there's more to this. .
-Roy
I still haven't been able to understand why there's any argument about English being the functional language of commerce, law and education in this country. What is the problem in the first place? It looks like all the arguments against this guy are based on claims of "intimidation" and "hate" and not on any sheer legal point that shows he's breaking a law. How is it that previous generations of immigrants from other countries managed to learn English and move forward to some degree, often against horrendous discrimination, and yet immigrants now are being "intimidated" or discriminated against if society demands the same? I have never heard or read a good argument explaining that.
I don't see the connection so clearly with what he said but maybe that's just me.
Just to be clear, I'm not making the connection based on the sign. The sign itself cannot, IMO, be reasonably called discriminatory. You cannot reasonably expect a business owner to accommodate any particular (or every) non-official language. Sue the transportation authorities in every state for not putting road signs in 50 languages and see where it gets you. The whole notion is ridiculous.
But the article you cited still makes the guys intentions clear:
He said Friday that he posted the sign because of concerns over the debate on immigration reform and the increasing number of people from the area who could not order in English.
He's within his rights, but he's still bigoted, which is what I meant when I said call it what it is.
And I couldn't agree with you more that using government intervention inappropriately for the right reasons is still almost always a bad idea.
I was in Phoenix a few weeks ago and ordered in very bad Spanish and a bit of finger pointing (at the menu) I did it because the food is good and cheap and my American dollars were good there. And every body got a good laugh at my funny Spanish. Even me. Then the guy after me paid in pesos. Nobody seemed to notice and I really didn't care. But then there was a big TV news report on all this and much,much more relating to the "illegal problem". Its gonna get ugly in Phoenix here soon.
I wonder if Iran has as much of a problem buying nuclear fuel from Vadimir Putain.
"immigrants now are being "intimidated" or discriminated against if society demands the same? I have never heard or read a good argument explaining that."
This is so retarded that I cannot bring myself to waste the time giving you that argument.
Or you, Don. Try thinking for yourself.
meanwhile, I will go back to wondering why, when we could have a beautiful world, we choose instead to be complete fucking retards.
But just to start you off, why doesn't it occur to you boys that society could "demand" a lot of things that it generally has in common, but it would be horribly bad if it actually did?
society could "demand" a lot of things that it generally has in common, but it would be horribly bad if it actually did
I'm unable to parse that sentence, for some reason, except in such a way that shows you actually agree with me. (You want society to demand conformance to certain modes of thought, i.e. suppress the crypto-racist sign, yet you say that would be horribly bad, and I agree.)
Let me assure you, I want a beautiful world. Allowing fucktards who compensate for their own inability to accept and love people of a different outlook by FORCING behavioral changes on them is absolutely not the way to get there.
Post a Comment