From: schungbh@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Assimilation & Language
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:42:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.081054.4820@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, u907736@u907736.utas.edu.au (Edmund Chia) writes:

> There seems to be some confusion between overseas students and non-English
> speaking migrants. The behaviour of migrants, whether or not they chose to
> speak English, etc, is interesting but really not the business as overseas
> students. 

   I do not understand the BIG FUSS over the speak "THE E-Language Issue".  
C'om guys, where is the freedom of choice.  I believe that everyone has the 
right to speak their own tongue as and when and "where" they felt most 
comfortable.  

   As for those fellas' who do not understand anything other than English, 
would understably be felt leftout... Now, who's to blame?  If they are really
interested in knowing what some FUNNY sound their Alien mates are making, they
could jolly well make an effort to the least learn the language... 

   But there are so many "different set of sounds" you say...  So who's to 
blame?  For one, why didn't the Great Kingdom colonised the world when they 
were once in such good position to do so?   OR, May be whatever that's in 
the foreign sound are not meant for whoever who does not understand... 

   Hey does everything has to go Public?  And just because the fact that the
host speaks in different tongue does that rightly implied that the guest 
should be coersed into the situation that they may not necessarily felt 
comfee'.

   Afterall, diversity the GGolden rule to Survival.  Don't just dig your 
Gold or bale your wool cause very soon you would find yourself sleeping on 
the bale and buried in Gold.  What glorious death...   

   OTOH, it would be RUDE, and very very RUDE indeed(I can't stress enough 
of the RUDEness) on the behalf of the guests chattering in some unheard of 
sound.  So, where's the sense of privacy everyone is entitled to? You felt
out, but do you always have to stick your foot in things?  But you say, it's 
afterall only right for the host to understand the guest. 
   

> While I have no objection to speaking English in public or private, or towards
> learning more about Australia and Australians. I would most certainly object
> to and resist assimilation into "Australianess". I am a Singaporean, and proud
> to be one. I take assimilation into something to mean submerging or 
> subordinating something in myself to something else. 


  It is afterall a sense of mutual respect among parties what would seen to 
be the agreed Protocol of communication.  And it is utmost important that 
the diversity of the individual culture be preserved and not destoryed.  Hey
lets' face it there would be a total acceptance, one would much be deem a 
clown.  Where's the sense of identity and uniqueness that nature has bestow?
Let's pulped down all trees for paper and just retain Gum tree which non
more native than A-u-s-t-r-a-l-i-a-n.  Remember it was just about 200yrs
ago that this place was unhabitated by "People". 

 
> On the other hand, there is no reason why my remaining and retaining my
> 'Singaporeaness' should offend any Australian. There might be instances
> of a culture clash where what is deemed unacceptable in one culture is
> commonplace in another. However, such instances would be far less than
> the instances where both cultures share a common sense of what is good
> manners, behaviour, values, et al. One such example would be speaking so far
> as possible - in a common tongue. 

> Rod has argued convincingly that this is
> desirable in the case of Australia and that overseas students should respect
> the fact that English is the language of Australians and the lingua franca in
> Australia David has argued and argued convincingly (IMHO), that there are
> instances where this is simply not possible. I don't see why both arguments
> should be incompatible - i.e. Overseas students should for a variety of 
> reasons, not least of which would be respect for monolingual Australians, 
> speak in the language of their hosts, BUT under special circumstances(for
> detail, read David's posts), any right-minded understanding person would
> understand the use of another language which was not English.


  To bring my view thro', I always felt that I'm very fluid when it comes
to communication. In a place like Singapore, much less to say for the other 
parts of the world, where everybody flip a different tongue, it is English
as a common melting pot that brew the very localised Sing-lish that I would
most identified with.  A form of common diversity.  Of course the evolution
of a common tongue is not a matter of a day or 2 but with the extra deterant
of "oneness" would definitely not help.  The fear of being nullified and 
stepped over is not uncommon in history.
  
  
> On the subject of migrants, I believe that these days, an English test is
> necessary. However, not too long ago, while under the delusion that Australia
> was multicultural, no such tests were required. 

  Worry less cause' the new generation of migrants would more than ever to 
accept and assimilate whole-hearted in order to be deemed as part of the white
culture.  


> Migrants were accepted as
> citizens on grounds of compassion(usually) or economics(business-migration)
> and other reasons. As for whether or not migrants should be English-speaking,

  A word of thoughts,

         " Share your brooth only when you are sure that 
               your family had enough, enough so that they did not have
                   to cry in hunger and desperation... and 
                       turn hostile to the guest that you're once so 
                           keen to lend a hand... "


> I shall share a few thoughts. Some of the posts I've read seem to infer the
> FACT that Australia is an English-speaking nation and that Australians are
> 'westerners' in some curious blend of the British and North-American culture.
> That means that Italian migrants or Greek migrants or Lebanese migrants will
> have to 'assimilate' by adopting an Americanised Anglo-Celtic culture before
> they are truely 'Australians'. This seems to suggest that if they spoke 
> Italian, Greek or Lebanese, etc, then they are not Australians or lesser
> Australians. 

  Anyway who can define an A-u-s-t-r-a-l-i-a-n.???  By means of what discarded
limp of once a Great Empire. Or by desend of what disgraced lesser know of 
one's family?  Isn't it time for a change for a more universal view?  

Ben

#############################################################################

          A circle is but a smoothed out square.... 
                                            OOPS inspired.

############################################################################

PS:
   The views that is expressed above are entirely my very own and it had 
nothing whatsoever to do with the organisation in which I'm a part of.




From: Damian.Fitzgibbon@f106.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Damian Fitzgibbon)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au