Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 16:24:22 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dual language (was: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha clock.c) Message-ID: <3CF16EA6.32B8802F@mindspring.com> References: <20020522050350.GA266@lpt.ens.fr> <20020523124604.Z45715@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020523061551.GA237@lpt.ens.fr> <20020523155541.H230@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020523063222.GA470@lpt.ens.fr> <p0511170eb9127dabc846@[10.0.1.8]> <20020525075741.GC630@foo31-146.visit.se> <20020525175337.F84264@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020526094106.GA345@foo31-146.visit.se> <3CF15CAD.C05C6BEE@mindspring.com> <20020526224928.GA1520@lpt.ens.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > Terry Lambert said on May 26, 2002 at 15:07:41: > > > There are studies that show that a speaker of a minority language > > > tends to be sentenced to harsher punishments, for instance. > > > > Maybe in countries where the people speaking the languages hold > > grudges for forever; but in the U.S., studies have shown that > > non-Spanish speakers don't get sentenced to harsher sentences in > > counties in Southern California and Miami, where Spanish is now > > the majority language. > > That's an unusual situation. The question then is, is Spanish the > majority languages among the judges, the jury, the lawyers? Your statement was a blanket statement. If you want to correct it now, you can. The lawyers don't matter so much as the judges and the jury. The jury is of one's peers, and is selected more or less at random from civic record -- voting, driver's license, and other means of establishing identity and location to the state, which the state can then leverage to track you down and force you to serve on a jury. So really, the only argument you have is one of judges. For the most part, judges are elected. In the cases they are not, then the judges are political appointees by people who *are* elected. In my area of the U.S., in the last election, it was possible to obtain ballots in English, Spanish, and Chinese. There were also people available to provide translations for anyone who did not fall into those categories or was otherwise illiterate in one of those three languages, yet still entitled to vote by virtue of (a) breathing and (b) not having committed a felony and (c) having U.S. citizenship. > There is plenty of evidence that blacks do get harsher sentences in > the US, compared to whites. You can get the same numbers relative to economic status. The numbers based on economic status, in fact, have a better correlation than those based on ethnicity: poor people get harsher sentences, regardless of their ethnicity. It's not *about* ethnicity: it's about affording the best defense, relative to the ability of the state to spend money on their offense. It's also true that the lower your income, the more dire your straights, and the less you have at risk when deciding whether or not to commit a crime: I'm convinced that many people avoid committing crimes because "they don't want to lose their stuff". Not a strong argument in favor of civil obedience, unless you happen to "have stuff". I also know Republicans and other otherwise "conservative" people who are in favor of taxes for redistribution of wealth. In effect, they are willing to "pay people to nopt take their stuff". > > > If one writes to some kind of authority, asking for a permit or > > > whatnot, chances are that the request will simply be ignored, either > > > because the receiver doesn't understand the writers language, or > > > because he/she doesn't _want_ to understand > > > > I think that most U.S. citizens will take this as evidence that the > > government you are speaking of is corrupt. > > > > Using language or ethnicity (when it's even discernible) as a > > controlling factor in public policy administration is generally viewed > > as corruption, by definition, by U.S. citizens. > > It's favouritism, discrimination, whatever -- but corruption? > Corruption is the exchange of money for favours. It's nothing to do > with language or ethnicity. Corruption does not require the involvement of money. It may be the result of discriumination or favoritisim. Your premise was that the receiver didn't "_want_ to understand"; either your first premise was worng, or your new premise, "It's nothing to do with language or ethnicity" os wrong. Pick one. > > There are plenty of news reports having to deal with commerce that > > discuss, for example, how long it takes to get a business license > > in various provinces in India, if you are unwilling or unable to > > bribe someone. The time is measured in months or even years. > > Seems kind of irrelevant to the topic above, of discrimination against > speakers of different languages. If the official in these situations > is corrupt, don't imagine that it will be easier if you speak his > language. Your premise is that there is discrimination against speakers of different languages. My premise is that you are dealing with corrupt assholes (pardon my dying French), and it really doesn't matter to me if the bribe takes the form of monetary remuneration, or of remuneration in the form of reenforcement of ethnic roles (or the lack thereof) which is desired by the corrupt person. It's also always easier to bribe someone if there is a common language which both parties understand, since it doesn't require that you trust a translator with your secret. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CF16EA6.32B8802F>