Brojos bashing French

I don't think most people buying that French 9/11 book believe its premises any more than I believe that those buying the inane bestselling "Left Behind" series by that religious nut Tim Lahaye are all pre-millenial dispensationists who believe the UN is the anti-christ.

Very good post.

But still even if you take the last list over the list of numbers of primary and secondary speakers. The argument can still remain that English should be used because it is the overwhelming majority, 14 points ahead of France. Why should France get signs because by this post they edge out Spanish by 3 points, and comparing the 14 point difference between English and French, behind France you could get in Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, German, Japanese, Portugese, and Hindi/Urdu.

This whole debate is rather trivial, but I must admit it is quite entertaining. Although some have turned this into an anti-French/ anti-American thread which it really never was intended to be. The only truly valid argument that can be made is that the signs should be put up for tradition.

It seems that at least one person decided to get up off of his/her butt and do a little research on the language usage question, and it appears (at least from the source given) that the choice of dual English/French is a good one. Thank you.[/quote]

I forgot to mention in my last post, the most logical dual would be Greek/English, but that's just my opinion.

JimFiore wrote:

kmh wrote:

but these kinds of chauvinistic conspiracy theories are very much symptomatic of cultures in rapid decline.

By this logic, and considering what I sometimes see coming from the radical right here in the USA, I would have to conclude that the USA is a "culture in rapid decline". Certainly, the French have no patent on chauvanism nor a lock on conspiracy theories. BTW, isn't the USA one of those "undeserving beneficiaries"?

Oh really? I am surprised that you would generalise extremist right wing views for the entire of the USA. Your point is well taken tough. I recall congressional testimony a few years ago by members of the militia movement who argued that the us govt was, among other things, altering the weather patterns over the united states in order to limit the freedom of its citizens. However, since Waco and especially OKC these fringe elements have, in fact, been in decline as well.

The outdated UNSC structure is categorically UNBENEFICIAL to the United States's national interests. Look no further than this past spring's histrionics over Iraq. It was a complete debacle, regardless of the diplomatic snafus committed by the Bush Administration. The UNSC gives middling powers far too much leverage whilst leaving other important players - Brazil, Japan, India, Nigeria, etc. in the lurch. Its totally unrepresentative of 21st century geopolitical reality.

Now, as far as the French, this is a country very much in debate with itself about the future of the republic and its place in Europe and the world. Most of what we get in the media here is about the French acting out with typical gallic bravado, when in fact there is an awful lot of soul searching going on. It's not only 9/11 consiracy theory texts on the bestseller lists; "La France Qui Tombe", by Nicolas Baverez, is also there. I'll leave you to translate. His book is causing a shit storm and the politicians have been attacking him relentlessly. France, if not the French language, is a country quite unsure of itself. And their global influence -- culturally, economically and militarily -- is in decline. Do you disagree?

All of which underscores to me the hilarity of the IOC french-english mandate. That was a nice analysis up there, but French over Spanish or Arabic or Manadarin? sorry, try again.

I'm simply using the same argument to show that it is false. Generalizing extreme right-wing views across the entire USA is just as incorrect as generalizing that the view espoused by a controversial book represents the majority opinion of French citizens.

I would agree only if you define US national interests in a very narrow, short-term framework. That is, if one defines US interests as the US being allowed to do whatever it wants whenever it wants, then working within the confines of any global organization becomes a hinderance. In contrast, many people believe that true long-term stability can only be achieved when all affected parties are properly represented. The US should not attempt to operate in a vacuum. This only leads to discontent over perceived arrogance.

Without a doubt, the current global military/economic impact of France is decidely less than it was in, say the 1700's. The same can also be said of England. Consider the phrase "The sun never sets on the British Empire". Not exactly true anymore, is it? That doesn't make the English LANGUAGE any less important.

As to whether or not the cultural impact is less, that may or may not be true depending on the group you're talking to, and it may or may not be a good thing. It all depends on what you find attractive in a "culture". There are many things in modern American culture (such as excessive consumption, a propensity toward the disposable, etc.) that many find abhorrent, even if it is more "popular" than ever.

Again, I find this discussion moot, because if the IOC has English/French signage rules, then that's what they have. End of story. I am participating only because I am sensing an underlaying tone of jingoism, a "USA Uber Alles" that I find disturbing. If athletics has taught me anything, it has shown that the most sure-fire way of being knocked off of first place is to parade around shouting "We're number one!"

American jingoism, no way, surely not. God bless America, and hope Bush gets home from the UK safely. He should go visit France while he's there, he's only an hour away.

Spanish is much more widely used. A slavic language would also be better than french.

espanol wrote:

Spanish is much more widely used. A slavic language would also be better than french.

Spanish is NOT more widely used... There are certainly more native Spanish speakers than French, but French is one of the two languages (together with English) that is spoken on virtually every continent.

I am not arguing here for French being used on IOC signs (I couldn't give a damn!), just trying to see why it has remained so (there are of course historical reasons for it being used in the first place)...

Given the context of the games, where a delegation is sent from every country, the number of French speaking countries does outnumber that of Spanish.

Other than that, if the IOC wants to scrap French as an official language, they can go ahaed... I'm a French speaker, and quite honestly, I couldn't give a hoot!