The Instigator
asta
Con (against)
The Contender
Mangani
Pro (for)

Should Latinos be allowed to keep their culture?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Mangani has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/28/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 683 times Debate No: 113250
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

asta

Con

I don't think Latinos should be allowed to keep their culture. It's not like Americans are forcing Brazil and other countries in the region to accept English to make it more multicultural.
Mangani

Pro

Merriam Webster's definition of culture, or at least the contextual definition in this case, as words tend to have more than one definition, is as follows: a : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time.

My opponent makes the mistake of conflating language with culture. While language is an integral part of culture it does not dictate culture, and has very little to do with keeping, or relinquishing ones culture. One can remain Russian, and fully immersed in Russian culture, for example, yet celebrate this culture in English. The same is for any language, and any culture. We see this every day where examples of foreign cultures are given in a language we are familiar with.

My opponent also makes the mistake of assuming culture is something you can take away. It's not. Maybe over time you can snuff out an entire culture, but you can't take it away from an individual, or a group of individuals. It's also not a practice of any known democracy to force abandonment of one's culture. In fact, the notion can be considered unethical, or even genocidal.

Elimination of culture is what the Nazis did, and what fascist nationalists, and bigots do everywhere - it is not what the law allows, nor is it something considered an essential human act. Keeping one's culture is not a hostile act - suggesting someone should be stripped of their culture is akin to waging a war against said culture. This wouldn't be considered an act of human decency, for example, rather an act of violence and hate.

There is no rational argument for requiring, or demanding anybody be stripped of their culture. Nobody has the right to "allow" anyone to keep something you simply cannot take from them.
Debate Round No. 1
asta

Con

While I should have been more specific with my question and replaced "culture" with "language", assuming your willing to argue this point, the rest of the argument would be explaining why Latinos should not be allowed to speak their language in the US recreationally:

What do the separatist movements of:
1:Austria Hungary
2:Ukraine vs Russia Influenced East Ukraine/Crimea
3:Spain vs Catalonia and Basque
4:Mexico vs Texas and Mexican Cession
5:Belgium vs Flanders
6:Various Middle east nations vs Kurds
7:United Kingdom vs Wales
8:Canada vs Quebec
9:Egypt vs Hala'ib
10:Belize vs Southern Belize
11:United States vs Puerto Rico
12:Roman empire vs their multiculturalism

All have in common? They are all on the basis of cultural differences between the parent country and the smaller power.

Why am I telling you this? Because I am afraid of the same thing happening to the United States (US).

Unassimilated Latinos are coming into this country and they are in the process of making super majorities in certain areas in the country. Once they accomplish this, they then will want to secede from the rest of the country.

If you think this is just nonsense, unfortunately, it's not. The president of Mexico has said that he is the president of 123 Mexicans; 100 million in Mexico and 23 million in the US. La Raza and MEChA, which aren't extremist groups, but they are mainstream activist groups, advocate for Mexico to take back the southwest US, even though the US bought this land fair and square and for a very good price; about $750 million in cash and debt payoffs for land with less combined taxpayers than Tempe, Arizona, a place most people in this country can't locate on a map without guessing.

So, the US is probably going to break up on this basis and the only way to stop it is to force everyone in the US to Americanize.

There are people that are worried about how they would lose their culture. However, how is culture even important? It does not make you who you are, what makes you who you are is what you do in life, not your ethnicity.

If the US broke up on the other hand, it would be significantly less able to defend freedom worldwide. Since the US would have to deal with a separatist movement from Latin Americans, it would mean it would be less able to focus on defending the world from North Korea(NK) and ISIS.

People say NK made peace with South Korea(SK), but whether or not this happens in the long term is up for speculation. Anyway, if the US is unable to deal from these threats due to the Latin American separatist movements, then SK and Japan both become communist from NK and China. Russia would probably invade all of Europe because there is no US to stop them and spread communism there. ISIS would take the middle east and all of Africa because there is no US to stop them.

This will happen form the US being unable to fight them due to the US having a local Latin American conflict to deal with. Since the UN would preach, (Self determination, you should have assimilated them while you had the chance), the US would resist this and as a form of protest, eliminate the UN, which is headquartered in the US. The nations become divided, which they already are.

In summary, if Latinos are allowed to keep their culture, it would make them want to secede. This claim is backed up by some of the many times in history that different cultures break away to preserve their culture. If the US breaks up, then freedom worldwide would be lost. Over 6 billion people would be under a communist system, with some Islamic law in there. I estimate that 600 million people would get killed under the fascist governments, because that's how they work; by killing all your political opponents.

Either immigrants endure the necessary pain or the US dies as well as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sources:
http://www.languagepolicy.net...
http://tvtropes.org...
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu...
--
Alec Stanton
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
+Mangani

P.S. You said that I am a bigot due to my ideology.

The definition of Bigot is:
"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race". By this definition, it sounds like your the one being the bigot.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
+Mangani

While I am politically far right, I am not a Nazi.

My ideology vs the Nazi ideology:

Nazis believe in killing non Aryans.
I don't believe in killing non anglophones.

Nazis believe in censoring all those who disagree with them and they tend to be trolls.
I'm not being a troll.

Nazis wanted to invade land from foreigners militarily and non consensually.
Although I want to make my country bigger, I want to do this by purchasing land from other countries at a mutually agreed price.

P.S. You shouldn't be rude in the future. If you disagree and want to comment, you can have an approach similar to Frosty Snowman. He disagrees with me, but he's not being a dick about it.

What put the Nazis in power was the Treaty of Versailles. An alternative treaty would be to invade Germany, assimilate the Germans into their respective countries (France, UK(the US would have traded their portion to the UK for Canada)) and then there is no holocaust. There probably wouldn't be a civil war once assimilation is complete.

Don't be rude in the future.
Posted by Mangani 3 years ago
Mangani
To be clear - I did not argue the 2nd round because it is clear my opponent is simply making bigoted arguments, and I chose not to participate. This is alt-right white nationalist bs - the same bs that put the Nazis into power.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
This is part 2, part 1 is below.

Texas seceded on slavery that was true. However, the US didn't take just Texas. They also took the Mexican cession from Mexico (does not include Texas) and most of this land was anti-slavery territory at the time. Why would the US want the Mexican cession (excluding Texas) which had very little people on the land if they weren't already Americanized? It would be like the US really wanting Siberia from the Russians.

Also, if Latinx people settled where they currently are, then there also would be ideological differences between the Latinx influenced regions and the rest of the country. Just as Anglo Texans tended to be more pro slavery, Latinos would tend to be more liberal and a separatist movement in the US would base their ideology off of linguistic and cultural differences, just like the Anglos in Texas.

As for the Latinx thing, I didn't know Latinx existed before this conversation. What would the plural gender neutral term be?
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
1st off, you shouldn't repeat the same thing twice or if you do it accidentally, say it's accidental once you realize it. It makes people less likely to report you for spamming.

Americanization means:

-Learning English and speaking only English in the public unless your teaching it in a class or talking to a tourist if you can.
-Identifying more with America then with their original country of origin.
-Be fiscally reliant.
-Getting into the country legally through the federally approved process.

Language is the biggest factor, but not the only one. However, the other factors I listed above aren't as prone to separatist movements.

People can learn foreign languages, I'm not against that. However, schools should be encouraged to require less language classes from people and more of another class that they may be not promoting as much. In the high school I went to, there were only 3 credits for Science and 3 for math. By eliminating a language requirement, that school can focus more on math and science so students are better trained in those skills.

While language advocates say that it helps with foreign trade, more often than not, the foreign trade partners know English since it's the language of business.

It gets enforced the same way any other law is enforced; violators get punished. It's a necessary discrimination to keep the United States, well United.

Freedom of speech is a reference to freedom of religious and political peaceful expression. Evidence that the amendment does not apply to language is even George Washington, one of the most patriotic people in the US at that time (since he literally was the leader of the army that fought for it's independence), believed in the Americanization of Native Americans west of the Application.(Para 6, line 6)
(http://www.mountvernon.org...). Even George Washington didn't believe in freedom of speech when applied to foreign languages.

I will make
Posted by FrostySnowmans 3 years ago
FrostySnowmans
You claim that the "biggest foreign threat to keeping the USA united [is] the unamericanized Latin Americans," but you don't provide a definition for what 'american " or "unamerican" is. If you were to argue that language is the deciding factor for whether or not someone is American or not, because the US does not promote an official language, even though English is most commonly used, it is hard to make the case that language is the deciding factor.

You claim that "[p]eople can learn foreign languages, that's fine. It can be spoken in your house so people stay bilingual[,] and a separatist movement would have a hard time developing if the language stays isolated," but many schools across the United States require students to take foreign language classes, which would mean that the language would still be widely spoken across the United States. Even if you suggest that people should only speak foreign languages is their homes, there is no reasonable solution to ensure that this rule will be enforced. Not only is this discriminatory to other cultures, but it violates the 1st Amendment, as well.

In your second round, you presented "examples" of separatist movements that you claim to be caused by differences in language/culture. However, many of these movements are/were caused by a variety of political, social, and economic factors. For example, from what I learned in the semester of Texas history I took at my school, a contributing factor was also that the current dictator of Mexico, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, removed Texans' rights to slavery, along with the fact that he repealed the Mexican Constitution.

As to why I "call Latinos Latinx," I didn't. Latinx is used to describe Latin culture, as well as being used as the gender neutral form of Latino/a when Latinos isn't appropriate. When referring to culture/ members of that culture, you use Latinx/members of Latinx culture, and when you are talking about Spanish/Portuguese ethnic groups, use Latino/a/os/a
Posted by FrostySnowmans 3 years ago
FrostySnowmans
You claim that the "biggest foreign threat to keeping the USA united [is] the unamericanized Latin Americans," but you don't provide a definition for what 'american " or "unamerican" is. If you were to argue that language is the deciding factor for whether or not someone is American or not, because the US does not promote an official language, even though English is most commonly used, it is hard to make the case that language is the deciding factor.

You claim that "[p]eople can learn foreign languages, that's fine. It can be spoken in your house so people stay bilingual[,] and a separatist movement would have a hard time developing if the language stays isolated," but many schools across the United States require students to take foreign language classes, which would mean that the language would still be widely spoken across the United States. Even if you suggest that people should only speak foreign languages is their homes, there is no reasonable solution to ensure that this rule will be enforced. Not only is this discriminatory to other cultures, but it violates the 1st Amendment, as well.

In your second round, you presented "examples" of separatist movements that you claim to be caused by differences in language/culture. However, many of these movements are/were caused by a variety of political, social, and economic factors. For example, from what I learned in the semester of Texas history I took at my school, a contributing factor was also that the current dictator of Mexico, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, removed Texans' rights to slavery, along with the fact that he repealed the Mexican Constitution.

As to why I "call Latinos Latinx," I didn't. Latinx is used to describe Latin culture, as well as being used as the gender neutral form of Latino/a when Latinos isn't appropriate. When referring to culture/ members of that culture, you use Latinx/members of Latinx culture, and when you are talking about Spanish/Portuguese ethnic groups, use Latino/a/os/a
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
I do want everyone to non express a non English reason because of the fear of the USA dividing. However, Latino cultures are currently the main focus. Most non English language that is spoken publicly in the US is Iberian (Spanish and Portuguese). While other cultures are a problem as well, the biggest foreign threat to keeping the USA united are the unamericanized Latin Americans.

People can learn foreign languages, that's fine. It can be spoken in your house so people stay bilingual and a separatist movement would have a hard time developing if the language stays isolated. You could speak your native tongue if your a tourist and have a card for proof because tourists don't stay in the country forever and they can't vote for separatist movements since tourists can't vote in the country they temporally reside as well as talking to such tourists.

However, in all other situations, it should be banned because of the stuff I don't want to repeat since it would be repetitive.

P.S. Why do you call Latinos Latinx?
Posted by FrostySnowmans 3 years ago
FrostySnowmans
If you are forcing one group to remove their language, then why don't you remove all of them? Based on your logic, why shouldn't we force everyone to speak English and adopt "American" culture to protect against secession from minority groups? I'm confused... why is this specifically targeting Latinx members? That seems racist and a gross demonstration of superiority. Certain ethnic/cultural groups are not superior over others. I'll reiterate the point of this comment: why does this argument only focus on Latinx people if you claim that the divisive factor is language?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.