Re: [luv-talk] Reading the Bible
Russell Coker wrote:
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 4:08:46 PM AEDT Trent W. Buck via luv-talk wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
So 72.7% of Australians can't follow politics in non-English countries easily. That's like saying most Mexicans can't follow US politics because USA is an English-speaking country, and they only speak Spanish.
Mexicans who don't speak English will find it difficult to follow US politics.
Even though there's a huge Spanish-speaking minority in USA? :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language_in_the_United_States "United States [is] the third-largest Hispanophone country in the world, after Mexico and Colombia." I think it's easier for a Mexican to follow the politics of USA than the politics of Spain. My point was to poke holes in your (apparent) implication that because Australia is an English-majority country, we can only understand and hang out with other English-majority countries, and (therefore) that Mexico and USA can't understand one another because USA is English-majority and Mexico is Spanish-majority.
Of course there will be significant interest in US politics given how much US politics matters to them, compared to Spain for example where they can easily follow the news but it won't matter much to them.
Why do you think it's at all controversial that the US has a major influence on Australia?
That was not my intention. You initially started talking about the US, and when I asked why, you said (paraphrasing) they're a shit anglophone country, and when I asked why you focused on anglos, you said (paraphrasing) they're the only ones we have a relationship with. So I was like: "hang on, yes, we interact with the US, but not ONLY them. China drives our economic policies and Indonesia drives our military policies".
Having a PM elected by parliament instead of an elected president makes a significant difference to politics.
Er, if you mean here in Australia, AFAIK the way it works is this: 1. party X elects a leader Y (i.e. only party X members vote) 2. party X gets a majority of seats 3. party X goes to the Queen (via GG) and says Dear Queenie, We'd like to form a government, with Y as your PM, is that OK? 4. The Queen (via GG) rubber-stamps it (unless she's REALLY REALLY REALLY angry). In this system, if the ALP has a majority, other elected MPs (e.g. from the Greens or Nationals) have no say in who the PM is.
On Monday, 19 March 2018 3:11:02 PM AEDT Trent W. Buck wrote:
Mexicans who don't speak English will find it difficult to follow US politics. Even though there's a huge Spanish-speaking minority in USA? :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language_in_the_United_States
"United States [is] the third-largest Hispanophone country in the world, after Mexico and Colombia."
I think it's easier for a Mexican to follow the politics of USA than the politics of Spain.
People who don't speak English will find it difficult to follow American politics.
My point was to poke holes in your (apparent) implication that because Australia is an English-majority country, we can only understand and hang out with other English-majority countries, and (therefore) that Mexico and USA can't understand one another because USA is English-majority and Mexico is Spanish-majority.
I never said that we could only associate with English speaking countries. Merely that it's a lot easier for the majority of Australians who only speak English. Try reading articles about Spanish politics through Google Translate some time. I've tried it and it's difficult, unpleasant, and gives the impression of being inaccurate.
Of course there will be significant interest in US politics given how much US politics matters to them, compared to Spain for example where they can easily follow the news but it won't matter much to them.
Why do you think it's at all controversial that the US has a major influence on Australia?
That was not my intention.
You initially started talking about the US, and when I asked why, you said (paraphrasing) they're a shit anglophone country, and when I asked why you focused on anglos, you said (paraphrasing) they're the only ones we have a relationship with.
So I was like: "hang on, yes, we interact with the US, but not ONLY them. China drives our economic policies and Indonesia drives our military policies".
Name the last 3 occasions that we went to war to support Indonesia. The TPP was not foisted upon us by China. While the US has stopped pushing it, that's where it appears to have originated.
Having a PM elected by parliament instead of an elected president makes a significant difference to politics.
Er, if you mean here in Australia, AFAIK the way it works is this:
1. party X elects a leader Y (i.e. only party X members vote) 2. party X gets a majority of seats 3. party X goes to the Queen (via GG) and says
Dear Queenie, We'd like to form a government, with Y as your PM, is that OK?
4. The Queen (via GG) rubber-stamps it (unless she's REALLY REALLY REALLY angry).
In this system, if the ALP has a majority, other elected MPs (e.g. from the Greens or Nationals) have no say in who the PM is.
Unless of course you have a coalition government in which case whoever forms the coalition gets a say. Usually they won't want to make an issue out of who is PM as they have other things they want to push. But they could. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
People who don't speak English will find it difficult to follow American politics.
There is still truth to this (especially for immigrants who speak less-spoken languages), but there are perhaps more complexities than you are aware of. Notably, there are two major Spanish-language television networks, Telemundo and Univision, that have presences both over the air and on television cable services. In theory, all of the services of government at all levels are accessible in any of a dozen-ish of the more-common languages. E.g., common government paperwork can be had in Spanish, Vietnamese, Mandarin, etc. In any court appearance, translators can be summoned at no charge to the citizen. Printed or electronic ballots are available in all of that large group of languages. Someone requesting a ballot in Swedish or Romansch would doubtless be out of luck, and I'm sure that coverage of the greater-spoken languages is better, but the point is the United States makes a creditable effort to respect there being no official language, though I'm sure there remains English-language biases invisible to yr. present correspondent. (I've never studied Spanish formally, but found when I was in Spain with British friends that I naturally absorbed a great deal of Spanish passively as a Californian while the Brits stood around puzzled by even words like 'calle' (street). It was an amusing realisation.) It is also doubtless that Spanish/English bilateral outreach is decidedly better here in California than in, say, Oklahoma or Arkansas.
Russell Coker wrote:
I never said that we could only associate with English speaking countries. Merely that it's a lot easier for the majority of Australians who only speak English.
Try reading articles about Spanish politics through Google Translate some time. I've tried it and it's difficult, unpleasant, and gives the impression of being inaccurate.
Well I can read Spanish (badly), and I block google, but I know what you mean. Did you have trouble following, say, the invasion of Afhganistan because you didn't speak Dari *or* Farsi? You don't HAVE TO rely on google when there are still multilingual human beings. Of course they have their own agenda, but then so does Google.
So I was like: "hang on, yes, we interact with the US, but not ONLY them. China drives our economic policies and Indonesia drives our military policies".
Name the last 3 occasions that we went to war to support Indonesia.
To *support* them? Oh, I was thinking of... something else.
The TPP was not foisted upon us by China. While the US has stopped pushing it, that's where it appears to have originated.
Erm, I don't think so. The TPP began as an expansion of the TPSEP signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
On Tuesday, 20 March 2018 10:20:36 AM AEDT Trent W. Buck wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
I never said that we could only associate with English speaking countries. Merely that it's a lot easier for the majority of Australians who only speak English.
Try reading articles about Spanish politics through Google Translate some time. I've tried it and it's difficult, unpleasant, and gives the impression of being inaccurate.
Well I can read Spanish (badly), and I block google, but I know what you mean.
Did you have trouble following, say, the invasion of Afhganistan because you didn't speak Dari *or* Farsi?
Yes I do have trouble following what's happening in Afghanistan, I have to rely on reports in English.
You don't HAVE TO rely on google when there are still multilingual human beings. Of course they have their own agenda, but then so does Google.
I don't know anyone who speaks Dari or Farsi. The people I know who speak Spanish don't seem inclined to write an English version of their content.
The TPP was not foisted upon us by China. While the US has stopped pushing it, that's where it appears to have originated.
Erm, I don't think so.
The TPP began as an expansion of the TPSEP signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005.
From the first paragraph of that page: After the United States withdrew its signature,[6] the agreement could not enter into force
I don't think you are making a good case for Chinese influence. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting russell@coker.com.au (russell@coker.com.au):
Yes I do have trouble following what's happening in Afghanistan, I have to rely on reports in English.
For the Middle East but, alas, not Afghanistan, https://www.memri.org/ is useful even though the project has USA and Israeli origins and occasional bias. ISTR that Middle East Media Research Institute got its start after people kept pointing out that local coverage and official pronouncements in Arabic and Farsi often differed greatly from the versions of the same news items released to the West in European languages. I've checked a bit using my paltry knowledge of Arabic and (more usefully) asked native speakers, and the latter vouched for the accuracy of MEMRI's translations. Also of note, though no longer available in dead-tree form as it once was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Review
participants (3)
-
Rick Moen -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck