multilingual rudeness (vent)

[kckgirl]

Since Sign Language is an official language, I will post another gripe here.

My SIL and her daughter, neither one of them deaf, are both proficient in Sign Language. I think it is rude for them to converse openly, in front of other people (none of them deaf either) in Sign Language.

I once saw a mother who was signing to tell her son to be quiet in church. Her parents are deaf, so they both sign, and it was the quickest and quietest way to get her point across. Other than that, I've never seen hearing people using sign language to have a private conversation in front of others, which I think would be rude.

[Tagy]

It's awfully hard for anyone to tell, at first glance, what ethnicity/nationality I might actually be, so this happens to me all the time.

My ethnicity is also hard to pin down just by looking at me.  I'm a "little bit of everything", but am vaguely Mediterranean looking so when I am in New York and go to a Greek, Italian or Spanish restaurant, the waiters usually address me in their language and I have to tell them that I only speak English.

I wonder if I'm too old to learn a new language (I'm 32?)?  It would be pretty cool to actually be able to answer them for once!

[Venus193]

Tagy, you are not too old.  I started teaching myself Spanish at 40.  Here's a site for it:

http://www.learner.org/resources/series75.html

After you view this series a couple of times, you can watch the romantic, sexy novelas on the Spanish channels.  The one in this post starts on the 15th.

[T'Mar of Vulcan]

After you view this series a couple of times, you can watch the romantic, sexy novelas on the Spanish channels.  The one in this post starts on the 15th.

Yes, but if you learn Afrikaans you can watch really bad soaps like 7de Laan and criticize the terrible English subtitles.  

[Lauren]

If you wish to criticize the war, please do so in an academic setting, not at the site of a massacre and a memorial to the dead.

Honestly, this isn't something that I agree with. When I was in America (did six months of high school there) my host family took me to a lot of different historical places (I'm a history nut and so were they, it was a match made in heaven, especilly on the East Coast) At every place, inlcluding the Washington monument we discussed the differing views on each individual site. Now its its a grave (such as Arlington), or a specific part of the historical site that is a memorial (such as the Arizona at Pearl Harbour) than obviously you treat it as such. But walking around Gettysburg we chatted about EVERYTHING to do with both sides of the war. Hell, we sat on the Grassy Knoll and discussed Kennedy's politics! I honestly don't find this rude, unless its vulgar for the sake of being vulgar.

[Emmy]

I agree that it is rude for people who speak a foreign language to do so when they are in mixed company with people who don't understand the language.  For example, if you are invited to a party and are fluent in English and another language, it would be rude to have conversations in that language when nobody else understands it.  If you want to have a private conversation, go to a private place, don't speak in a language people can't understand in a group setting.  I've read posts on other forums from daughters in law who are made to feel excluded when they spend time with their husbands families because the family speaks a language the daughter-in-law can't understand.  Gossiping in any language is rude, but people who think they are slick because they can speak in a foreign language, therefore gossip about somebody in front of them without them knowing it are especially rude.

I believe in private conversations in public such as eating out or walking along the street, it is not rude to speak in your native language, providing everybody you are with understands it.

[hollasa]

If you wish to criticize the war, please do so in an academic setting, not at the site of a massacre and a memorial to the dead.

Honestly, this isn't something that I agree with. When I was in America (did six months of high school there) my host family took me to a lot of different historical places (I'm a history nut and so were they, it was a match made in heaven, especilly on the East Coast) At every place, inlcluding the Washington monument we discussed the differing views on each individual site. Now its its a grave (such as Arlington), or a specific part of the historical site that is a memorial (such as the Arizona at Pearl Harbour) than obviously you treat it as such. But walking around Gettysburg we chatted about EVERYTHING to do with both sides of the war. Hell, we sat on the Grassy Knoll and discussed Kennedy's politics! I honestly don't find this rude, unless its vulgar for the sake of being vulgar.

That's a great point. There must be a big difference between discussing different historical perspectives of a particular historic site, and making rude comments about how stupid people were for dying somewhere. I still have difficulty seeing how the former can be considered to be rude, but I'm willing to be educated.  I would also think there would be a difference between a religious site, and a political site, but I'm not sure what I'm basing that feeling on.

For example, would it not be permissible to criticize the Vietnam war at the war memorial, or at in Vietnam, rather than in an academic setting only? In this example, I'm not talking about a rude criticism of soldiers, but a criticism of the justification and results of that war.

"All history becomes subjective; in other words there is properly no history, only biography." - Emerson
"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." - Steinem

[ettacat]

Since Sign Language is an official language, I will post another gripe here.

My SIL and her daughter, neither one of them deaf, are both proficient in Sign Language. I think it is rude for them to converse openly, in front of other people (none of them deaf either) in Sign Language.

I once saw a mother who was signing to tell her son to be quiet in church. Her parents are deaf, so they both sign, and it was the quickest and quietest way to get her point across. Other than that, I've never seen hearing people using sign language to have a private conversation in front of others, which I think would be rude.

If it were that kind of situation, I would not complain. But, no, they have conversations in sign language, right in front of me and other people. I am all for practicing, but still. I think it is rude.

[RoseRose]

If you wish to criticize the war, please do so in an academic setting, not at the site of a massacre and a memorial to the dead.

Honestly, this isn't something that I agree with. When I was in America (did six months of high school there) my host family took me to a lot of different historical places (I'm a history nut and so were they, it was a match made in heaven, especilly on the East Coast) At every place, inlcluding the Washington monument we discussed the differing views on each individual site. Now its its a grave (such as Arlington), or a specific part of the historical site that is a memorial (such as the Arizona at Pearl Harbour) than obviously you treat it as such. But walking around Gettysburg we chatted about EVERYTHING to do with both sides of the war. Hell, we sat on the Grassy Knoll and discussed Kennedy's politics! I honestly don't find this rude, unless its vulgar for the sake of being vulgar.

That's a great point. There must be a big difference between discussing different historical perspectives of a particular historic site, and making rude comments about how stupid people were for dying somewhere. I still have difficulty seeing how the former can be considered to be rude, but I'm willing to be educated.  I would also think there would be a difference between a religious site, and a political site, but I'm not sure what I'm basing that feeling on.

For example, would it not be permissible to criticize the Vietnam war at the war memorial, or at in Vietnam, rather than in an academic setting only? In this example, I'm not talking about a rude criticism of soldiers, but a criticism of the justification and results of that war.

"All history becomes subjective; in other words there is properly no history, only biography." - Emerson
"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." - Steinem

As a history major, I study both sides of the history.  I think there's a difference between a memorial and a historical site.  I'd personally wait until I had left a memorial (such as the Vietnam war memorial) before discussing the negatives of the war, but I'd have no problem doing it while walking between that memorial and, say, Roosevelt's memorial.  At a historical site (such as Gettysburg, though not in the cememtary) I think it would be perfectly legitamate to discuss all sides of the war, both positive and negative.  The difference to me is that at a memorial is a set place for honoring and remembering people, while a historical site is that because a historical event happened to occur there.  So, I'd criticize the war in Vietnam, but not at one of their memorial sites, nor at the U.S. Vietnam memorial.

I think both the positives and the negatives need to be talked about, but to do it in a place that is specifically and only for the remembrance of people who died is tactless at best, downright rude at worst (depending on volume and words used).

Also, rude, non-historically based attacks are completely inappropriate in my mind.

But... Is the Alamo only a memorial or is part of it a memorial and part of it a historical site?  In my opinion, the behaviors are different for the two (I last visited the memorials in DC about 3 years ago).  At a memorial, you are there to respect and honor the dead memorialzied there.  At a historical site you are there to learn about the history of the place, and the events of that historical action, in the case of the Alamo, the Texas War for Independence.  If it is in it's entirety a memorial, then any critical comments are probably not appropriate, but if there is a specific area that is a memorial, and the rest is set up like a historical site, then criticism (NOT saying unfounded nasty remarks, but historical criticism) is, in my mind, legitamate.

I've also noticed, as an observer, the older a memorial is, the more it is treated by the public like a historical site.  (This impression comes from the D.C. memorials).  I don't know how I feel about that as of yet.

[NYGirl100]

I do have a caveat to add.  My DH does not speak my family's language and my parents do not speak English well (they know enough to function, but not enough to hold full conversations), so between my parents and me it's easier to communicate in our language rather than in English.  There are times when we do communicate in our language in front of DH, but I always make sure to tell him afterwards what we are talking about so he'll feel included, and we would never talk about him in our language in front of him.  

[Suze]

one of my friends had a small problem with a coworker at one time.  She spoke Spanish and he did not know it. 

I think that she said he was from Portugal, he would call his wife at lunch time and have very ....ahem.....private ..... sort of conversations.

He thought that no know would know what he was saying --- until she left him a note in Spanish on his desk one day.

He turned ...very... red and the lunch calls stopped the next day.

[kjdragonfly]

As a history major, I study both sides of the history.  I think there's a difference between a memorial and a historical site.  I'd personally wait until I had left a memorial (such as the Vietnam war memorial) before discussing the negatives of the war, but I'd have no problem doing it while walking between that memorial and, say, Roosevelt's memorial.  At a historical site (such as Gettysburg, though not in the cemetery) I think it would be perfectly legitimate to discuss all sides of the war, both positive and negative.  The difference to me is that at a memorial is a set place for honoring and remembering people, while a historical site is that because a historical event happened to occur there.  So, I'd criticize the war in Vietnam, but not at one of their memorial sites, nor at the U.S. Vietnam memorial.

I think both the positives and the negatives need to be talked about, but to do it in a place that is specifically and only for the remembrance of people who died is tactless at best, downright rude at worst (depending on volume and words used).

Also, rude, non-historically based attacks are completely inappropriate in my mind.

But... Is the Alamo only a memorial or is part of it a memorial and part of it a historical site?  In my opinion, the behaviors are different for the two (I last visited the memorials in DC about 3 years ago).  At a memorial, you are there to respect and honor the dead memorialzied there.  At a historical site you are there to learn about the history of the place, and the events of that historical action, in the case of the Alamo, the Texas War for Independence.  If it is in it's entirety a memorial, then any critical comments are probably not appropriate, but if there is a specific area that is a memorial, and the rest is set up like a historical site, then criticism (NOT saying unfounded nasty remarks, but historical criticism) is, in my mind, legitamate.

I've also noticed, as an observer, the older a memorial is, the more it is treated by the public like a historical site.  (This impression comes from the D.C. memorials).  I don't know how I feel about that as of yet.

The Alamo is both a memorial and a historical site.  But in my mind, a place where so many lives were lost should be a place of peaceful reflection.  I'm all for historical discussion (and I love a good debate) but to me, the Alamo is like a concentration camp (not comparing the scope of the tragedy, the holocaust was much more tragic).  At a concentration camp, no one (I hope) would say the people who died there were stupid not to escape or that they should have revolted and killed their captors.  We can discuss the Alamo in detail and talk about the motives for the war, both right and wrong, but do so outside of the gates, because inside, people want to reflect on the sacrifice those who died made. 
 

[LeoGirlChelsea]

I moved to my fiance's country (Europe) almost a year ago, and used to study the language even though need to take a break recently (mainly financial reason), but understand what is going on if it's chitchat level. His mom and sis cannot speak English but we are doing fine most of the time. His uncle, and almost all cousins can speak good English, but there are some  times and people - like my uncle-in-law's girlfriend.
Basically she refused to remember or even try to pronouce my name (my name has just two sounds, almost nobody had a problem saying it) to start with, and always call me THAT GIRL, even in front of me. She usually pretty much ignores me, and always looks so annoyed everytime I try to speak to her, either I speak English or speak simple (and not good) ****nian (language name). It's like I need to be perfectly fluent ***nian speaker to be accepted as a 'good enough' family member over a year, and I am quite sure she does not stop calling me 'that girl' 

[kingsrings]

In either case, if an employer takes on a person who isn't a native speaker of English, the least s/he can do is teach them the basic words to cover situations like this.

Agreed. If I am in a store or restaurant, I should be able to ask any employee in the public eye a question and have them understand what I am asking. Employers should not put people who don't speak the native language of the land in a position of customer contact.

I also think it is rude for people to speak a foreign language in front of other people who don't speak that language, regardless of whether they're bad-talking anybody or not. The only exception would be tourists who are visiting another country and don't live there. But once you live in another country, I feel that it is being rude and disrespectful to that country and it's people to speak only your native language unless you are in private, such as at home or are speaking to someone back home on a phone call.

[Venus193]

She usually pretty much ignores me, and always looks so annoyed everytime I try to speak to her, either I speak English or speak simple (and not good) ****nian (language name). It's like I need to be perfectly fluent ***nian speaker to be accepted as a 'good enough' family member over a year, and I am quite sure she does not stop calling me 'that girl' 

And she won't.  This isn't about her skills in her language; it's about something else, including her toxicity.