Linguistic Rights

Is it better to have a policy where everyone is suggested to assimilate to the regional language? For example, Bangladeshi immigrants in the United States should learn English.

Or is it better to have a policy where individual languages are encouraged, like let's say a school district has 40 Bangladeshi children, should they be taught math, science, and history through their native language along with ESL?

Any language policies idea that best work in practice? Anyone who suggests Esperanto will be sent to the gulag.

Also, remember that not every country has the resources to teach linguistic minorities. Like Nigeria and Nepal.

The US is not the best example. But there are real material barriers to teaching children in irrelevant languages.
I personally believe that English is the best vehicle for worldwide education.

Communities should teach in their native or preferred languages and use it as long as possible. However, for communication between two regions that don't understand each other, a neutral, easy to learn language should be used, like Esperanto. Learning it should be compulsory for everyone.

Logisitically it's easier to have one class where people who don't speak the language to learn that language than to have multiple classes that are redundant with the primary language but teach in specialized languages. Especially if you have more than one minority language. Being multilingual is a good thing too. Also, having other classes use the new language will synergize with their learning while having to teach the teachers (several adults) a new language is a lot more difficult (and finding adults who already can teach in that language may be prohibitively expensive). Also if there's some kind of fuckup where the person learns something wrong about the language, then if that person is a teacher it will affect all of their students instead of if it were a student who will be the only one affected.

You can just teach in whatever language is most prevalent in a given area.

In practical terms, it is desirable that the aliens races who are temporary guests in our nations do not learn our tongues whatsoever. In fact, it would be ideal if they were actively prohibited from learning them or speaking them entirely.

It could be a mix and match system though. For example, some native English speakers learning through Bangladeshi or Spanish.
But to be fair, learning a subject in a foreign language as a child is difficult and leads to worse grades. This is why Mexican immigrants in the US do worse in school, because they have a huge disadvantage from the start. American children have trouble learning math. Imagine having to learn German at the same time.

Esperanto is meant to replace other languages. It's a terrible idea for world communication. I'd rather have a few languages than just one zionist creation.

There's no point teaching native English speaking kids some useless language that they will never use. They simply won't learn it, you would just waste their time. If you are an English supremacist who wants to aid the American empire in their conquest just admit it and say that everyone should speak English just because you already do and have an irrational hatred of Esperanto.

I didn't say it was ideal, but this is going to veer off into a discussion about how fucked the education system is in general if you're not careful.

Unlike English, Esperanto is not meant to replace other languages and poses no threat to them. It was designed to be an universal second language, to be used with people who don't understand your native language. Meanwhile English is actively destroying languages and cultures all around the world at this very moment yet you still claim that it should be the international language.

I think language and education is a serious discussion to have. What's the point of half-assing it one way or the other? I think a country should be clear about a language policy for its children. Are we going to teach anglos broken Spanish for 8 hours a week and teach Mexicans English and Science at the same time? What's the ultimate goal of foreign languages in our society?
English is the world language and it obviously has to be key somehow, but to what extent in young children?

It's best just to ignore cultists like this.

Esperanto is useless for people who don't speak an indo aryan derived language.

You don't have to be a cultist to realize the damage English has caused to your native language. I see it online every day, it's a disgrace. Only so that some fat fucks in Hollywood and wherever the HQ of Netfix is can be richer.

Teaching people only their native language regardless of where they're educated is ridiculous. There isn't even a word in human languages to describe how impractical that would be. If you move somewhere learning the native language is a requirement. Here in the US, not only should english be the official language of the country, but being fluent should a requirement for citizenship.

Esperanto is useful for everyone. You could claim that it's somewhat harder for them because they are less familiar with the roots of the words but in practice that's not a real problem. Many people in the far-east find Esperanto way easier than English.

Esperanto freaks don't realize that Esperanto is a terrible Victorian language created by a zionist and fueled by cosmopolitans.

If we truly wanted an international language, we would mix English, Chinese, Russian, Swahili, and Arabic together. That way we all have an equal start. There is no logical reason to base the international language on Romance and Germanic languages with some weird alien grammar.

I somewhat agree. But children should be able to do well academically and acquire English at the same time.
Yet time and time again, non-whites do worse off than native citizens, either because they speak a different native language at home, or they are raised speaking Ebonics or some weird creole due to societal divides. We need to bring these disadvantaged people within the English linguistic ecosystem.

I mean it's worked before, people in the South West United States had to learn learn Spanish in their curriculum far more than they even do now.

Learning a second language isn't that hard, and you segregating workers into what they do or do not speak is just going to cause more harm then good. You've twisted identity into language, and while I'm sure you could make a million different arguments identity and langauge are correlated, people also speak second languages just fine.

I'm assuming you know English, and for much of the world, it's similar. English has become a dominant language far more than whatever you think they do. You're essentially dismissing the possibility of learning a second language and using that as a method of division through identity.

That's just gonna be a ban. And I'm putting on the tag to say I notice who's making these posts, and pushing this agenda. And I'm not going to ignore it.

You are terribly mistaken if you think some roots are that helpful in learning the language. If anything, the actual differences make it harder because you keep mistaking it with the one you are already familiar with. But it's not a real issue, it's the easiest language to learn and it's completely neutral. There's a reason it's the only artificial language that ever took of and no matter how hard others tried they always failed to improve on it.

That's what specialized English classes are for.

Regional official languages allow for improved commerce and communication, but that does not mean that a vibrant community of secondary languages shouldn't exist. Communication across India, for example, would become radically more different without a common regional language, but the existence of other languages should still be encouraged. It's acceptable for states to support multiple official languages, as long as information is uniformly/equitably presented in each language.

Re: Teaching: What languages are best for praxis? Those are the ones that should be taught. Linguistic heritage should be preserved, but as long as prohibition or other aggressive anti-language tactics have not been employed it does not have to be taught in schools.

I agree, but I was just pointing out that my rebuttal would delve into issues beyond the scope of the OP and potentially distract from the thread topic. I'll stick to the relevant parts as much as I can.

My point about grades is that they're fundamentally a bad idea that disregard how people learn, and in the case you cited (immigrant kids getting lower grades if they have to learn in a second language) is obscuring the more relevant point. Grades can indicate educational progress on a topic but aren't used for that (instead being used to measure how "teachable" kids are more or less). If someone doesn't speak the language of the society they live in, then they are behind in their education/adaptation (which is indicated by the lower grades). This is simply a fact of being a non-English speaker in an English society, and responding to the low grades by teaching them in their native language is an approach that responds to the metric (grades) but not the underlying problem (the lack of familiarity with the primary language). Education isn't only about teaching the primary disciplines; it's about teaching the context of those disciplines. Knowing algebra in Spanish is not as useful in a country where people know algebra in English (and the more that a subject relies on notation and/or the language in question differ the worse the differences in convention get). Spanish-speakers in an English speaking land (swap out languages as you please) are at a disadvantage and pretending they're not and that all languages are equal in a context where that's not true is a misunderstanding of the situation.
I think ideally everyone would be learning other languages to maximize the number of people they could talk to around the world.

Esperanto is Eurocentric af but not useless to people with very different linguistic backgrounds.

Esperanto has a long socialist past, it's been popular among workers who didn't have the time or money to learn other languages but understood the value of international solidarity.

Gulags were also popular with early leftists.
Why do you people promote your stupid idea where it's not wanted? No one will learn Esperanto. Irrelevant 20th century idea now mostly used by middle class white people. Fuck off.("Gulags were popular with early leftists" They still are, welcome to Summer Camp. Please place your tooth brush in the disposal chute.)

Can this mod stop making the cringiest ban messages I've seen outside of reddit screencaps?

Languages have network effects that govern their value. It feels infeasible to advocate for teaching everyone a new language that only people within our movement may use, especially given the investment needed to learn / teach a new language.

If we move towards a global language it's way more likely to be some kind of creole than it is to be some linguistic fever dream.

Agreed. Let's mix English with Hindi and Chinese or something.

We should all learn !Xóõ. It’s the people’s language.