Funny story... we've visited Ocracoke on and off for many years now.
The first time we planned a trip, we wanted to book a fishing charter. My wife called one of the local captains (Ronnie O'Neal) and couldn't understand half what he said. Ended up politely ending the call (and wondering out loud what she just heard). 15 minutes later, she gets a call back from the same number and it's the fisherman's son (Ryan). We'd never heard of the Ocracoke accent, but that's what it was... Ronnie was in his late 50s or 60s and had always lived on the island. Ryan was late-20s or early 30s at the time and attended to college on the mainland and spent some winters working inland as well, so his brogue was much less noticeable.
Anyways, we booked a trip with them several years in a row. Good times. Look them up if you find yourself down that direction and fancy a day of fishing.
Thick accent, poor cell phone connection. Much easier to understand when you're face to face (or video) and have context. It was probably 50% shock - she was expecting a "normal" east NC accent.
FWIW, I bet being English does help - I'm Scottish and don't struggle with accents anywhere near as much as some of my friends. I once had a roommate ask to turn on captions for Trainspotting - and those accents weren't even that thick (IMO)!
Truly comedic moments from my work history. I was once the only London-based employee on a project principally done in Mumbai and Chicago. I’m pretty sure the principal reason I was on the project was I was the only person who understood everyone’s accents.
Any unfamiliar accent is difficult. The only question is the amount of effort we’re willing to put in to familiarise ourselves.
For example, I thought I had a decent handle on Scottish accents. Turns out I don’t, just that all the Scottish people I worked with were anglicising their accents. I only heard their natural accents after we had a few pints. Now I’m working with several Scottish people who don’t change their accent and it is hard. I’m thinking I probably have to watch a few seasons of Outlander to get used to it.
There’s nothing “natural” about any accent. How difficult was the Boston accent the first time you heard it? I needed subtitles for sure. Then I watched several movies set in Boston (Good Will Hunting, The Departed, The Town) and it’s understandable now.
All this to say - you need familiarity to understand and you need to put in effort to gain familiarity. That’s fairly uncontroversial.
Here’s the controversial part - people will put in the effort to understand the accents and dialects of people from Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America. But if it’s an accent/dialect from India, they say some racist shit about the brown people being unable to speak English.
So yes “Strong Indian accents are very difficult” for you. And now you know why.
In 2005, I could believe this complaint because offshoring was still pretty new. But 2025, still... really? I find it hard to believe. This sounds like very low effort on your part. India is the size of a continent, and AI tells me: "India is roughly the same size as Europe (excluding Russia)." Can you imagine someone from India saying the reverse? <<"European" accents (whatever the hell that means because there are 50 countries in Europe!) are very difficult for me...>>
What is your native language, and what makes your struggle unique?
Do you also struggle to understand the myriad of other strong English accents, such as: Oz/Kiwi English, or Singlish (Singaporean/Malaysian English) or South African English, or Hongkonger English, or (Los Angeles) Valley Girl English (I jest here)... or French English, or whatever else? Plus, there are so many incredible YouTube content creators speaking English as a second (or third!) language these days... hell, it is like language accent training watching YouTube these days (hats of to them for publishing in a non-native language!).
In my country there was a meme about having to do English listening exercises at school using very cheap speakers set up exactly in a way that you can't hear shit. Later someone made a counter-meme that this prepares you for the real-life situations where you have three Indians talking at once to one microphone from AliExpress and you need to figure out what they're saying.
Unfortunately, I have slight hearing deficiency, and working in an international environment is a nightmare, because for any given meeting, I understand 60% of what people say on a good day. Fortunately, I've learned that this doesn't really matter.
I was raised in Texas by yankees. Now I'm living in Israel with a British-born wife. I had no problem understanding that. It sounded to me like how some of my older friends in Texas talk plus a bit of slang. Maybe the exposure to British accent at home and a multitude of English accents at work and on the street helps.
With modern communications/media, I'm not sure to what degree with have true dialects any longer. But I worked in Louisiana for a few years back in the day and a friend of mine who grew up in Jacksonville told me to not feel bad because he often couldn't understand Cajun accents either.
I will run into people I know from northern England and some areas of Scotland at events and, especially in high noise environments like cocktail parties, I'm probably making out about half of what they say.
A thick Cajun accent, which is relatively rare these days, is understandably difficult to make out: Their primary language isn't English at all. It's Cajun French. So they are a French speaker (with an uncommon French accent) speaking English.
I'd say that's largely already happened and continues to. I know there's sometimes effort to give characters proper accents, but it's usually not too good. I did find it amusing to watch a show like Blue Bloods where they're all a local family, but all have different natural accents.
You also have places like Boston with very sub-regional accents. Southie accents are not really pervasive nor are Beacon Hill Brahmin accents. And, as you suggest, many of the residents are from all over the place.
People from Bootle will have a different accent to people from Toxteth for example. 2 miles through a tunnel and you have the softer Scouse accent of the Wirral, the further from Birkenhead to Chester you get the less Scouse they sound.
Head south on the M62 and the Manc accent slowly melts into the Scouse, starting at roughly the Runcorn area.
Oh, college roommate (while I'm Scottish, I've been stateside since I was 5) went to Scotland with me once. He missed about 1/4 of anything my uncle said. My uncle has a pretty typical working class highland accent (a bit more brogue than a professional from Edinburgh might have, but a far cry from Glaswegian - my family is from Perthshire).
My wife (from Oregon but went to high school in Iowa) stayed in a hostel while living in Germany, and her roommates were British, Irish, and Scottish. They were initially relieved that they all spoke English, but soon realized they could barely understand what the Scottish guy was saying.
One of my coworkers is Greek and learned English in Scotland. Nobody can understand him for the first six months they are working with him. He’s a cool dude though, once you get past the Greek-Scottish accent.
> As to Trainspotting, I found the subtitles a daft idea. Totally unnecessary, but then I'm from NE England.
Coming from Australia I would say that the subtitles were mostly useful and only sometimes unnecessary. I'm ok with accents, but there's a lot of nuance that you miss when you're mostly infering from context.
That said, when we heard that the original Mad Max got dubbed for the US release we all fell around laughing
I have enough trouble processing spoken words without being able to see the person's face, let alone a tough accent. I think the most understandable English accents I've heard on a phone conversation are Jamaican and Russian. FTR, I'm US born and raised (mostly Arizona). They just tend to put a little be more emphasis on the words.
The hook near the start (something about moonshine) is unintelligible for sure (and supposed to be) but honestly the rest of it is easier for me than a lot of mainland US accents! I am from the West Country as GP mentioned, it's not quite the same but certainly has a similar sort of drawl as the stereotypical local farmer.
(I haven't seen it but I believe there's a deliberately barely-intelligible character in Clarkson's Farm who's an example of it, if you're familiar. Or Hot Fuzz.)
Definitely needed subtitles the first five or so times for Trainspotting. Love that one! To be fair I need subtitles for almost all modern movies these days. My hearing or sound design are to blame... maybe both. :-/
You say that, but what comes to mind is the scene from Hot Fuzz where Simon Pegg's character needs a translator to understand a thick West Country accent.
Different accents pose different levels of difficulty to different people, just like most things. Not sure if it was your intention but yur responses come across quite dismissively.
Dude, why do you assume other folks hear things the way you do? Great, you’re an accent genius. Not everyone has the same perfect audio processing circuits as you do and not everyone has heard all the accents you have. Instead of insisting they just “try harder”, just believe them and consider how fascinating the diversity of human experience is and how incredibly superior your own understanding is, but please keep it to yourself.
How about looking earlier in the thread where we both mentioned which part of the Island we're from.
We're simply comparing ability to distinguish other regional accents on the Island, not putting each other down. Generally folks here get to hear lots of different forms of spoken English.
and no - I ain't no "accent genius", there are parts of the Scouse, Brummie, and Durham accents I have trouble with.
It's not that hard to understand when it's not fast like the fishing in bright light part you mentioned IMO. I've had much more trouble with some very thick NYC accents and Caribbean accents (although I put that down more to vocabulary preferences - when the phrasing isn't what you expect it's harder to understand).
Yes, for many Americans (myself included), that’s the problem.
I have the same trouble with many Appalachian accents which are also sort of a mix of West Country and Scottish accents due to historical immigration patterns.
One of the starting points of this article is that the current president has signed an executive order "making English the country's official language".
I think it's important to remind people what executive orders can and can't do. An executive order is an instruction sent to the government itself. It instructs government workers how to perform their job. It is not directed at the American public (though it can and does have an effect on the American public by way of government policy).
As such, this current executive order effectively does nothing. We've attempted to pass laws that make English the national language, but have consistently failed to do so.
And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself), but this executive order does not make that so.
Reading the executive order[1], the only change is to revoke Clinton's executive order 13166 ("Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited English Proficiency")[2]. There are no specific instructions of what it implies to revoke this order.
My interpretation is that federal agencies will stop providing non-English services, unless these are already happening at 0 cost. (For example, not instructing agents to speak only English, but no longer considering second language proficiency in future hiring.)
IANAL, but there may be legal complications, as order 13166's stated goal is to prevent title VI discrimination on the basis of national origin. However, the revocation explicitly states it should implemented consistently with applicable laws.
> As such, this current executive order effectively does nothing.
That's not true. For example, there was a story the other day of a librarian who was instructed to throw away all passport application forms in Spanish, as they would no longer be accepted.
If you go to the official Spanish page, you can see that the links to the forms are either broken or now redirected to their English version:
Thanks. Feels funny seeing people say this government is doing nothing or nonsense and has no ulterior motives or implications.
Funny in the sense of: are they blind? are they naive? or are they supporters?
Hundred of technocrats and modern nobility cannot be wrong.
There's an effect to be sure. I am, however, talking about legal status. As one of the other commenters pointed out, the actual text of the executive action is about rolling back a previous executive action designed to prevent Title VI discrimination. So, if I were affected as mentioned in the parent post to this, I would be reaching out to the ACLU to find a lawyer to help with challenging this.
As to the stated wording though, "making English the country's official language" (which mirror's wording used in the most recent presidential address), the executive order has no power to do so, because it's not a law.
I do understand. Everybody knows they are not going to ban spanish or put in jail gay-trans writers.
It's all about twisting laws to disserve whatever collective they go after, so their voters (voters believing they are antagonists of the other collective) keep satisfied and vote again.
Meanwhile they give contracts and move money and services towards their friends, the ones that financed their campaign so they can bring the message about the evil collective to the voters.
I assume GP meant as a legal instrument, rather than it's sociological effect. (Otherwise there would be little point to the comment? They mean to prevent the latter by raising awareness of the former.)
But you need to take actions to build that sense of identity and make everyone feel welcome. You also want your citizens to feel like they can share their traditions and participate in others traditions.
So at some point, you’re going to have to make accomodations for everyone, at least in the most popular languages because if you want new talent, you might be dealing with a family that has to bring their aging parents along if they want to migrate, or someone’s spouse.
These misinformation needs to end. I'm tired of it. More than 20 years ago, this was true, but today it is certainly not. There are all varieties of non-Japanese working in convenience stores, factories, farms, and hotels all over Japan. Plus there are more non-Japanese attending uni than ever before. Many will stay for work. Plus, getting a skilled work visa in Japan has never been easier. Sure, not as easy as Germany, Australia or Canada, but still light years ahead of 20+ years ago. They even have a special highly skilled visa now that allows people to get permanent residence in 1 or 3 years. Again: 20+ years ago this was impossible to imagine. Today, it is the reality.
Japan offers a decent amount of paperwork in English. Not all of it of course but many government sites, applications etc will have both English and Japanese versions.
If you want to become a US citizen, you have to show you're competent in English. [1] It's been this case for quite awhile.
I know that doesn't strictly mean that "English is the official language", but it is an official government body requiring you to know English in order to become a US citizen, so that seems a little official to me.
Just to clarify, "competent" is a long stretch. It's more like "how are you" -- once you can just _read_ that phrase you're passed. There are couple more questions, but civics are much harder than English (e.g. how many voting representatives are there in Congress?).
While I appreciate the sentiment and underlying truth to what you are saying, one of the more sinister, real effects of this order will be that virtually all federal employees who are employed for multilingual reasons, can now be argued redundant. When you consider the racial and cultural backgrounds likely in foreign language speakers, the defacto action is to fire a lot of nonwhite people.
As the law exists right now, you can only specify that people speak English for official work purposes. You can't stop two Puerto Rican dudes from speaking Spanish on their break talking about unofficial topics.
I mean ... you could hassle them, ask for their passports, arrest them at gunpoint ... (all things that ICE has done to US citizens within the past week).
> I'm for having English be the national language of America
I guess it depends on what that means. I'm for all services being in English at a minimum, that makes sense. I'm really not for removing obligations to translate or interpret.
Non-english speaking US citizens exist and interact with the government. For example, someone that's deaf. Or for reading, someone that's blind. Having access in those cases is important.
But further, there's a humanity aspect as well. Any asylum seeker can get railroaded. Or heck, a visitor from another country. If these people are accused of crimes they should have the right to understand why the government is punishing them if for no other reason than to give their side of the story.
A quick Google suggests that about 22% of Americans are multi-lingual, and roughly 8% of Americans do not have English as their dominant language (though I suspect that entirely non-English speaking Americans are at least one order of magnitude less).
I think only about 2% of countries in the world don't have an official language (America among them), and yet about 50% of the world is multi-lingual, so having an official language doesn't seem like an obstacle for other governments when it comes to support.
I suspect that the lack of of national language has more to do with the power struggle between the federal government and state governments then any issue, which is why I find this latest executive order quite baffling (for a party that is in the process of dismantling federal government, this is very much a federal power grab).
With all of that being said, I see it both as a recognition of the status quo, and a commitment to what is one of the greatest strengths of the United States (a single-language, single-currency market). Our largest economic rival (China) also has an enormous single-language, single-currency market, but that strength is largely focused inwards, since the use of a non-romanised language makes it very difficult for the non-Chinese reading population to adop sub-parts of the Chinese language.
I have never expected a foreign government to provide English-language materials (especially non-tourism related materials) on any of my travels to other countries. Why should that be an expectation?
I agree. If I travel to another country as a tourist, much less live there, I have zero expectation that the people there will speak to me in English. It's nice if they do, but I see it as my obligation as the outsider to bend to their ways, not the other way around. I think that similarly, if someone lives here they should be expected to learn English. They don't have to give up their native language and culture, but the onus is on them to learn our ways, not the other way around.
And yet they do [1]. I'm not saying that the expectation be there for all interactions in the country, I'm saying the expectation should be there if you are about to be charged with a crime in that country.
Why should that be an expectation? Because if you or I am being held against our will, wouldn't it be nice if you had an interpreter who could translate what the officer, lawyer, and judge are telling you? IE, if they tell you "you have to do this to not be locked up for 10 years" wouldn't it be nice to know how to comply with a ruling against you? Wouldn't it be nice if when they asked you questions you could actually answer them?
Nice? Sure. Do I expect it? No. I’ll go to the consulate before leaving my country to ensure I understand the laws of the country in which I’m going to be a guest, and obey those laws. In cases where I’ve needed translations, I’ve obtained them at my expense. I certainly don’t expect them to be provided freely.
Innocent people are arrested all the time. You can't just "obey all the laws" and assume you won't have a run in.
Without the legal protection to get a translator, you are assuming after being arrested you can simply call a translation service. Yet, you should know that most countries and most cops will take your cell phone.
It's a humanitarian principle that before being prosecuted you should at a minimum know why you are being prosecuted.
> I certainly don’t expect them to be provided freely.
I never said they had to (though I think they should). What's more important is that you have access to translation services.
Generally if you are a tourist, on a tourist visa, doing touristy things in a place where lots of tourists go, there will be multilingual (probably at least English) support. If you're going deep off the beaten path into China or Mexico or Russia or some other part of the world where tourists are rare and the local language is all most people know, then you should be think about how you are going to function in both ordinary and exceptional circumstances, including "what if I get arrested?"
Trump's supporters are OVERWHELMINGLY people who would not travel to a non-English-speaking country for pleasure, except perhaps to an all-inclusive resort where they would never
"have to" interact with a local (non-tourist-industry) person.
So they don't really empathize with the challenges of a less-fluent speaker in any locale. And we see that lack of empathy in many of the responses here.
They are also blissfully (aggressively?) unaware of how much their day-to-day existence, e.g. much of their food and clothing and other possessions and overall lifestyle, depend on people who don't speak fluent English.
In Spain all (national) government forms, documents, and services are Spanish only. Even in autonomous regions such as Catalonia that has a co-official language (Catalan,) if I want to interact with the national government, it’s Spanish only, even on immigration/residency forms.
In France, same thing. In Korea, also the same. Also China. And Mexico. Canada mandates French and English.
I see nothing wrong with a country having an official language. That doesn’t preclude people from speaking their own languages, but of you want to live in country Y, then learning that language should be a prerequisite.
>And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself), but this executive order does not make that so.
What would be the benefit or reason for this? I am also a multilingual person, and in many of the communities where I work, the Spanish speaking population is a significant majority such that to mandate English would be sisyphean. Sadly I can't get anyone to speak German with me, despite that being equally represented among Americans at the founding of our republic.
If people are not forced to speak the official language they never learn and eventually self-isolate within their own communities. This leads to the Balkanization of the country. Canada is currently dealing with this in relation to its Indian population, which is approximately equivalent to the Hispanic population in America in terms of percentage of the population and the occupations they work in.
Canada has two official languages and knowledge of one or the other is theoretically required to immigrate there, but almost all government offices and most private banks provide services in multiple languages (e.g. Mandarin, Punjabi, Tagalog, Hindi, etc.), so it's quite common for immigrants to never bother learning English or French. There's also lots of entry programs which don't require the applicant to speak either of the official languages, as well as a lot of fraud in those programs that do.
This has not had positive effects on Canada's social cohesion.
Another (somewhat ironic) example is in Mexico City, where some local residents are upset about the influx of predominantly American digital nomads and retirees changing the character of the city because they do not speak Spanish.
An official language isn't a mandate that enforces the use of English (take as an example India, which is probably the most multi-lingual country there is, but has Hindi as the "official language of the government". It's not the "national language", though in their case the splitting of hairs is probably directly tied to the number of languages spoken).
I know an American who spent several years in Paris, working in English, and never learned more French than was necessary to order her coffee. And this is despite French being the national language of France. (Interestingly enough, France is very multi-lingual as well, with many regions having their own history and language like Provençal, or Niçois, Breton, etc.).
It's more about a recognition of the status quo (as another commenter pointed out, most people acquiring US citizenship are required to demonstrate the most basic level of proficiency with the english language), and ensuring a baseline of support, no matter where you are in the country. Multi-lingualism is a plus, and in no way hindered by having a national language
> has Hindi as the "official language of the government”
First of all, I appreciate that you’ve made sure to draw this distinction between official languages of the central government and national languages.
However, English is still an official language roughly on par with Hindi as a result of indefinite extensions that were provided for in the constitution (as well as protests and uprising). For example, parliamentary legislation is authoritative in English but must also be translated into Hindi.
Of course it's cheaper and easier to deliver services in one language, but the United States is not a monolingual nation, nor has it ever been in its history. It would be a disservice to significant populations to assume otherwise.
Coming from North Europe, I always felt America’s loose definition of identity was its core strength.
No national religion. No national language. No centralized identity registry. Social security numbers that are more like timid suggestions than actual identifiers. Opening a bank account with just two pieces of foreign identity. Enrolling your kids in school by simply showing up and filling some forms.
I grew up in a country where I was assigned at birth with one state religion (out of two), a national language (out of three), and an ironclad digital identity number.
The American approach felt like a breath of fresh air. I — and millions of others — could choose to be someone else than what the computer says.
But the rise of Trumpism disillusioned me. Now I’m back in my home country and happily paying taxes to the state church while my children enjoy free education in four languages. What seemed like an identity straitjacket when I was younger now appears more like a spectrum of cozy options that I know how to navigate. Meanwhile America looks hell-bent on acquiring the straitjacket.
I'm confused. Is the "straitjacket" supposed to be good or bad? You seem to have ultimately happy to have chosen it for yourself but Americans choosing the same somehow disillusioned you?
I personally believe that the last few decades have shown us that a lack of unifying identity in America is a weakness, not a strength. We no longer have shared values, shared religious beliefs, shared customs, or really shared much of anything any more. And as a result, half the country viscerally hates the other half of the country. People living in cities disdainfully speak about "fly-over country" and how backwards and ignorant people are there. People living in rural areas complain about "big city liberals", and how they think they know everything but have no actual practical knowledge of anything. Both groups try to jerk the steering wheel of government back and forth with every election, and try to give even more power to the federal government so that they can use it to stop the other group from doing things they disapprove of.
In my opinion, this sort of thing greatly weakens us as a nation and will eventually destroy us if we can't figure out how to find common ground again. It should be possible - we've come back from worse (say what you will about modern day US politics, it hasn't come to civil war yet like it did in the past). But I think if we're going to find common ground, part of it will have to involve cultivating a shared national identity like we used to have.
> We no longer have shared values, shared religious beliefs, shared customs, or really shared much of anything any more.
We never had any of these, except for, possibly, just one shared belief: the idea that a constitutional democracy was the best sort of government to live under.
What we did have was a media/cultural environment that glossed over the differences between people, minimized various minority demographics, and worked hard to convince everyone that "we're all Americans and we all believe, do and want the same things". But that wasn't true then, any more than it is true today.
I want our shared national identity to be limited to our belief in our form of government. I don't want to have to know the same songs, go to the same church, drive the same car, watch the same shows as everyone else, and I don't think they should have to do that w.r.t my choices (nor are they likely to want to).
That was the beauty of "American identity", but even the belief in our form of government has been severely eroded. By whom or why ... I'll leave unremarked upon here.
shared religious beliefs, is possibly the biggest lie. As recently as the '60s there were questions about whether people would accept a "papist" president in the form of JFK. at least part of the reason why the separation of church and state existed was because otherwise it would've meant picking one of the many versions of Christianity or otherwise that had sought refuge in the US, which would mean excluding the others. The Quakers, the Puritans, the Pilgrims, the Catholics, the Anglicans, etc. were all very different and had very different opinions of each other.
>that a lack of unifying identity in America is a weakness, not a strength
America's proper and authentic identity always is its pluralism, entailing all the conflict that brings. If America made one unique contribution to the world its that it has shown how identities, plural, can be built from the bottom up and are in constant tension with each other, and that this is a feature, not a bug.
An American government trying to impose identity, by renaming lakes and mountains, mandating language(s) or what have you is so performative it looks more like North Korean state television than culture, it's utterly foreign to Americans and going to fail for that reason. Americans are instinctively allergic to having culture, regardless from what direction, declared on them by fiat.
I've always wondered what this actually means in practicality. The NYC MTA is still going to print the instructions for riding the train in 7 different languages. Is Taco Bell in Tulsa not allowed to print the menu in English and Spanish anymore?
Like, what is the point of this. I'm willing to accept that it's just a feel-good for the President's base. Like Gulf of America.
Generally, yes it means that in interactions with the government, there is more of an obligation for a citizen to speak English, rather than for the government to provide services in multiple languages.
It doesn't affect Taco Bell because that's a private corporation. And it doesn't affect transportation because that's also intended for travelers, visitors, etc. Nor would it affect health care.
But a good example would be driver's license exams. California offers those in 32 languages. Almost all states offer them in at least 2. If English is made the official language by legislation, there would be a strong argument to only offer driver's license exams in English.
Well, even more precisely: an executive order applies to federal workers in the executive branch. It doesn't apply to federal workers in the legislative, or judicial branches, and other sorts of workers. It certainly doesn't apply to private citizens or the states.
> I've always wondered what this actually means in practicality.
It means the Federal government now has a reason to not offer services in any language other than English. Before, they would offer services in Spanish, Chinese(various dialects) and other popular languages. They no longer have funding or a mandate to do that.
I think that your Taco Bell example is strictly off the table. I don't doubt that some people exist who want to make it illegal to use anything but English in the US, but realistically there isn't much political will to make that happen. So we're probably talking only passing laws which restrict the government.
As far as what that means for the government, it's hard to say because of the way government is structured here. Let's put executive orders aside and say that Congress passes a law declaring that English is the official language, and that all government communication shall happen in English and nothing else. Certainly that would apply to the federal government. It shouldn't apply to the states, because the Constitution doesn't grant that power to the federal government - but we've been blatantly ignoring the Constitution in that respect for almost a century now, so it wouldn't be surprising if we ignore it in this case too. It would almost certainly go to the Supreme Court, but it's hard to say whether they would strike the law down or decide to torture the Commerce Clause even more.
If they strike the law down or clarify that it only can apply to the federal government, then you'd probably see some states pass their own similar laws (or amend their constitutions) to achieve a similar effect. But other states would still use whatever language. If they say yes, the law can affect states as well, then obviously it would. But either way I think you wind up at a point where private parties use whatever language they feel like, while government communications are in English only (at least to some extent).
Basically, the point is to make it more difficult for non-English speakers (or people with limited language skills) to deal with the Federal government. As noted above, it's not a law and has no legal force to make private businesses do anything one way or the other.
It's the scope. Executive orders only apply to the execution/actions of the federal government. Laws apply to the general public. The creation of laws is a legislative power, and reserved to the legislative branch of the government.
Before clicking on the link, I thought it would be and article about Tangier. A friend flew my sister and me down there many years ago. The accent was definitely unique, but calling it Elizabethan seems a bit of a stretch. We did have some of the best crab I ever ate there. Sadly, the island is disappearing, due to sea level rise.
Yeah, similarly I've heard people say that the Maine accent, particularly "down east" islanders, is similar to an English accent in some ways - I think specifically some region of England, like Yorkshire maybe??
It really is a nice accent. I spent my most formative years in the Caribbean, and I still have a bit of an islander accent when I'm around others who have one. There's a gentleman who works at a Publix near me who is from Trinidad. The first time I met him, I only caught a slight hint of his accent. I asked him about it, and when he told me where he was from, we both immediately started speaking in full-blown island accents.
I also had two friends during my time in the Caribbean who were originally from the Outer Banks. I don't remember which island exactly, but they both had noticeable accents that were unlike anything I had ever heard at the time.
Watching videos about the various Outer Banks accents definitely reminds me of them.
What's interesting is that the accent is so different from the accent in the rest of eastern Maryland, which is a Mid Atlantic accent more similar to the one in Delaware and even New Jersey: https://youtu.be/-QgvQqg9q6Q?si=G6iGRQQuI-ZGwx8C. The accept is pretty mild in Annapolis where I am, but I have a neighbor who is from New Jersey and once I processed her accent, I could hear the same structure in how locals say words like "water" and "coffee."
Somewhat related was this article from ~2013 in TheAtavist [0] about Tangier Island in Virginia where they also still speak in an Elizabethan accent. It's about a director going to try to convince the locals to record lines from Romeo and Juliet so he can recreate it with vocal coaches and make a "authentically sounding" production. It's an interesting read, about 25 mins.
IIRC there's also a community in Maryland with the same (or similar) accent.
Lovely place, great campground managed by the National Park Service, if you don’t mind latrines and cold water. Right over the dunes from the beach. Spectacular views of the night sky.
When watching the video and hear people speak, it mostly reminds me of Dale from King of the Hill. Makes me wonder if the person who inspired Dale was from there.
Funny story... we've visited Ocracoke on and off for many years now.
The first time we planned a trip, we wanted to book a fishing charter. My wife called one of the local captains (Ronnie O'Neal) and couldn't understand half what he said. Ended up politely ending the call (and wondering out loud what she just heard). 15 minutes later, she gets a call back from the same number and it's the fisherman's son (Ryan). We'd never heard of the Ocracoke accent, but that's what it was... Ronnie was in his late 50s or 60s and had always lived on the island. Ryan was late-20s or early 30s at the time and attended to college on the mainland and spent some winters working inland as well, so his brogue was much less noticeable.
Anyways, we booked a trip with them several years in a row. Good times. Look them up if you find yourself down that direction and fancy a day of fishing.
What is the problem? Listening to the piece, the accent itself is quite understandable. Just sounds like they're from the West Country.
The only awkward one was where the bloke was talking about fishing in the bright light, I had to watch the 4 or 5 times before I got the hang of it.
Maybe being English helps?
For non Brits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Country
Start at 1:40 to 1:50... https://youtu.be/x7MvtQp2-UA?si=YgyWjA01BdExfolp&t=100
Thick accent, poor cell phone connection. Much easier to understand when you're face to face (or video) and have context. It was probably 50% shock - she was expecting a "normal" east NC accent.
FWIW, I bet being English does help - I'm Scottish and don't struggle with accents anywhere near as much as some of my friends. I once had a roommate ask to turn on captions for Trainspotting - and those accents weren't even that thick (IMO)!
Truly comedic moments from my work history. I was once the only London-based employee on a project principally done in Mumbai and Chicago. I’m pretty sure the principal reason I was on the project was I was the only person who understood everyone’s accents.
Strong Indian accents are very difficult for me. Less so in person, but on a Zoom call forget it. I end up asking them to email me.
Edit: added "Strong" qualifer, fwiw.
Any unfamiliar accent is difficult. The only question is the amount of effort we’re willing to put in to familiarise ourselves.
For example, I thought I had a decent handle on Scottish accents. Turns out I don’t, just that all the Scottish people I worked with were anglicising their accents. I only heard their natural accents after we had a few pints. Now I’m working with several Scottish people who don’t change their accent and it is hard. I’m thinking I probably have to watch a few seasons of Outlander to get used to it.
There’s nothing “natural” about any accent. How difficult was the Boston accent the first time you heard it? I needed subtitles for sure. Then I watched several movies set in Boston (Good Will Hunting, The Departed, The Town) and it’s understandable now.
All this to say - you need familiarity to understand and you need to put in effort to gain familiarity. That’s fairly uncontroversial.
Here’s the controversial part - people will put in the effort to understand the accents and dialects of people from Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America. But if it’s an accent/dialect from India, they say some racist shit about the brown people being unable to speak English.
So yes “Strong Indian accents are very difficult” for you. And now you know why.
In 2005, I could believe this complaint because offshoring was still pretty new. But 2025, still... really? I find it hard to believe. This sounds like very low effort on your part. India is the size of a continent, and AI tells me: "India is roughly the same size as Europe (excluding Russia)." Can you imagine someone from India saying the reverse? <<"European" accents (whatever the hell that means because there are 50 countries in Europe!) are very difficult for me...>>
What is your native language, and what makes your struggle unique?
Do you also struggle to understand the myriad of other strong English accents, such as: Oz/Kiwi English, or Singlish (Singaporean/Malaysian English) or South African English, or Hongkonger English, or (Los Angeles) Valley Girl English (I jest here)... or French English, or whatever else? Plus, there are so many incredible YouTube content creators speaking English as a second (or third!) language these days... hell, it is like language accent training watching YouTube these days (hats of to them for publishing in a non-native language!).
In my country there was a meme about having to do English listening exercises at school using very cheap speakers set up exactly in a way that you can't hear shit. Later someone made a counter-meme that this prepares you for the real-life situations where you have three Indians talking at once to one microphone from AliExpress and you need to figure out what they're saying.
Unfortunately, I have slight hearing deficiency, and working in an international environment is a nightmare, because for any given meeting, I understand 60% of what people say on a good day. Fortunately, I've learned that this doesn't really matter.
Imho, the Tangier accent is a lot more eclectic:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AIZgw09CG9E&t=38s&pp=2AEmkAIB
Barrier islands from Maryland to Georgia are linguistically fascinating. (As someone who spent a lot of time around them as a kid)
These just sound like lost british people with a slight american twang
A few generations removed, but basically.
At the risk of crushing the website, American regional and enclave accents are a fascinating rabbit hole to go down:
https://aschmann.net/AmEng/#SmallMapUnitedStates
Or American students we've taken on a pub crawl and taught well.
I was raised in Texas by yankees. Now I'm living in Israel with a British-born wife. I had no problem understanding that. It sounded to me like how some of my older friends in Texas talk plus a bit of slang. Maybe the exposure to British accent at home and a multitude of English accents at work and on the street helps.
With modern communications/media, I'm not sure to what degree with have true dialects any longer. But I worked in Louisiana for a few years back in the day and a friend of mine who grew up in Jacksonville told me to not feel bad because he often couldn't understand Cajun accents either.
I will run into people I know from northern England and some areas of Scotland at events and, especially in high noise environments like cocktail parties, I'm probably making out about half of what they say.
A thick Cajun accent, which is relatively rare these days, is understandably difficult to make out: Their primary language isn't English at all. It's Cajun French. So they are a French speaker (with an uncommon French accent) speaking English.
I'd say that's largely already happened and continues to. I know there's sometimes effort to give characters proper accents, but it's usually not too good. I did find it amusing to watch a show like Blue Bloods where they're all a local family, but all have different natural accents.
You also have places like Boston with very sub-regional accents. Southie accents are not really pervasive nor are Beacon Hill Brahmin accents. And, as you suggest, many of the residents are from all over the place.
It's the same in my hometown, Liverpool.
People from Bootle will have a different accent to people from Toxteth for example. 2 miles through a tunnel and you have the softer Scouse accent of the Wirral, the further from Birkenhead to Chester you get the less Scouse they sound.
Head south on the M62 and the Manc accent slowly melts into the Scouse, starting at roughly the Runcorn area.
Yeah - no problem with that section, nor with the rest of the video.
As to Trainspotting, I found the subtitles a daft idea. Totally unnecessary, but then I'm from NE England.
Added: Apparently some folks had difficulty comprehending "Derry Girls".
Oh, college roommate (while I'm Scottish, I've been stateside since I was 5) went to Scotland with me once. He missed about 1/4 of anything my uncle said. My uncle has a pretty typical working class highland accent (a bit more brogue than a professional from Edinburgh might have, but a far cry from Glaswegian - my family is from Perthshire).
My wife (from Oregon but went to high school in Iowa) stayed in a hostel while living in Germany, and her roommates were British, Irish, and Scottish. They were initially relieved that they all spoke English, but soon realized they could barely understand what the Scottish guy was saying.
One of my coworkers is Greek and learned English in Scotland. Nobody can understand him for the first six months they are working with him. He’s a cool dude though, once you get past the Greek-Scottish accent.
For Brits, I hear that The Wire is comparably difficult: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxBGzUhT-TM
Especially ironic since both Dominic West (McNulty) and Idris Elba (Stringer Bell) are English. Sheffield and Hackney, respectively.
Dominic West, Wire on: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ANAtaQsBL4&t=43s
Wire off: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FdbWsX6h4eo&t=3s
Based on my 7 years in Baltimore I have to say West was pretty spot on. An old 70s vice cop I knew sounded just like that.
Yeah, but those are probably two of the easiest to understand characters in that show
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iJ487vFzgBI
"Aaron earned an iron urn"
Lots of The Wire is a little tricky for Americans.
> As to Trainspotting, I found the subtitles a daft idea. Totally unnecessary, but then I'm from NE England.
Coming from Australia I would say that the subtitles were mostly useful and only sometimes unnecessary. I'm ok with accents, but there's a lot of nuance that you miss when you're mostly infering from context.
That said, when we heard that the original Mad Max got dubbed for the US release we all fell around laughing
I have enough trouble processing spoken words without being able to see the person's face, let alone a tough accent. I think the most understandable English accents I've heard on a phone conversation are Jamaican and Russian. FTR, I'm US born and raised (mostly Arizona). They just tend to put a little be more emphasis on the words.
Reminds me of the old saw that a Jamaican saying 'bacon' and a brit saying 'beer can' are indistinguishable!
The hook near the start (something about moonshine) is unintelligible for sure (and supposed to be) but honestly the rest of it is easier for me than a lot of mainland US accents! I am from the West Country as GP mentioned, it's not quite the same but certainly has a similar sort of drawl as the stereotypical local farmer.
(I haven't seen it but I believe there's a deliberately barely-intelligible character in Clarkson's Farm who's an example of it, if you're familiar. Or Hot Fuzz.)
> turn on captions for Trainspotting
Definitely needed subtitles the first five or so times for Trainspotting. Love that one! To be fair I need subtitles for almost all modern movies these days. My hearing or sound design are to blame... maybe both. :-/
You say that, but what comes to mind is the scene from Hot Fuzz where Simon Pegg's character needs a translator to understand a thick West Country accent.
https://youtu.be/Hs-rgvkRfwc?si=X6BjrTzK4hcKadeQ
Or Gerald on Clarkson's Farm... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLj_GARcO20
(I'm pretty sure his accent is exaggerated on purpose)
Again, where is the problem?
Close your eyes and _listen_, don't be distracted by the video.
Just Clarkson hamming things up.
Different accents pose different levels of difficulty to different people, just like most things. Not sure if it was your intention but yur responses come across quite dismissively.
Except Amazon's own subtitle group have issues understanding Gerald. To the point his subtitles are often just "????"
That’s a joke lol
Dude, why do you assume other folks hear things the way you do? Great, you’re an accent genius. Not everyone has the same perfect audio processing circuits as you do and not everyone has heard all the accents you have. Instead of insisting they just “try harder”, just believe them and consider how fascinating the diversity of human experience is and how incredibly superior your own understanding is, but please keep it to yourself.
How about looking earlier in the thread where we both mentioned which part of the Island we're from.
We're simply comparing ability to distinguish other regional accents on the Island, not putting each other down. Generally folks here get to hear lots of different forms of spoken English.
and no - I ain't no "accent genius", there are parts of the Scouse, Brummie, and Durham accents I have trouble with.
Yeah - OK. That one took me about 5 plays to be able to distinguish it.
It's not that hard to understand when it's not fast like the fishing in bright light part you mentioned IMO. I've had much more trouble with some very thick NYC accents and Caribbean accents (although I put that down more to vocabulary preferences - when the phrasing isn't what you expect it's harder to understand).
> Just sounds like they're from the West Country.
Yes, for many Americans (myself included), that’s the problem.
I have the same trouble with many Appalachian accents which are also sort of a mix of West Country and Scottish accents due to historical immigration patterns.
I think being English really helps here.
One of the starting points of this article is that the current president has signed an executive order "making English the country's official language".
I think it's important to remind people what executive orders can and can't do. An executive order is an instruction sent to the government itself. It instructs government workers how to perform their job. It is not directed at the American public (though it can and does have an effect on the American public by way of government policy).
As such, this current executive order effectively does nothing. We've attempted to pass laws that make English the national language, but have consistently failed to do so.
And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself), but this executive order does not make that so.
Reading the executive order[1], the only change is to revoke Clinton's executive order 13166 ("Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited English Proficiency")[2]. There are no specific instructions of what it implies to revoke this order.
My interpretation is that federal agencies will stop providing non-English services, unless these are already happening at 0 cost. (For example, not instructing agents to speak only English, but no longer considering second language proficiency in future hiring.)
IANAL, but there may be legal complications, as order 13166's stated goal is to prevent title VI discrimination on the basis of national origin. However, the revocation explicitly states it should implemented consistently with applicable laws.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/desi...
[2] https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/civil-rights-awa...
> As such, this current executive order effectively does nothing.
That's not true. For example, there was a story the other day of a librarian who was instructed to throw away all passport application forms in Spanish, as they would no longer be accepted.
If you go to the official Spanish page, you can see that the links to the forms are either broken or now redirected to their English version:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/es/pasaportes/requis...
That's just one example of many.
Thanks. Feels funny seeing people say this government is doing nothing or nonsense and has no ulterior motives or implications. Funny in the sense of: are they blind? are they naive? or are they supporters?
Hundred of technocrats and modern nobility cannot be wrong.
There's an effect to be sure. I am, however, talking about legal status. As one of the other commenters pointed out, the actual text of the executive action is about rolling back a previous executive action designed to prevent Title VI discrimination. So, if I were affected as mentioned in the parent post to this, I would be reaching out to the ACLU to find a lawyer to help with challenging this.
As to the stated wording though, "making English the country's official language" (which mirror's wording used in the most recent presidential address), the executive order has no power to do so, because it's not a law.
>Funny in the sense of: are they blind? are they naive? or are they supporters?
You’re not understanding the comment you are laughing at.
There was no legal change, there was an operations change in how the federal government does things.
It’s still legal to speak whatever language you want and you don’t need to speak English
I do understand. Everybody knows they are not going to ban spanish or put in jail gay-trans writers.
It's all about twisting laws to disserve whatever collective they go after, so their voters (voters believing they are antagonists of the other collective) keep satisfied and vote again.
Meanwhile they give contracts and move money and services towards their friends, the ones that financed their campaign so they can bring the message about the evil collective to the voters.
One of the oldest tricks in the world.
I assume GP meant as a legal instrument, rather than it's sociological effect. (Otherwise there would be little point to the comment? They mean to prevent the latter by raising awareness of the former.)
i live in japan. i do all my paperwork in japanese. yes it is hard. no i dont think they need to offer it in english. i learn new kanji every time.
Japan is famously anti-immigrant though. Almost everyone in Japan is of Japanese ancestry.
The USA was built on immigration. It's called "the great melting pot" for a reason.
A common language is a key component of the "melting" part.
But you need to take actions to build that sense of identity and make everyone feel welcome. You also want your citizens to feel like they can share their traditions and participate in others traditions.
So at some point, you’re going to have to make accomodations for everyone, at least in the most popular languages because if you want new talent, you might be dealing with a family that has to bring their aging parents along if they want to migrate, or someone’s spouse.
They did used to make immigrants change their names when they arrived, though -- if they were too unlike "regular" English names.
There are many countries around the world which conduct paperwork in more than one language.
Japan offers a decent amount of paperwork in English. Not all of it of course but many government sites, applications etc will have both English and Japanese versions.
It already kind of was.
If you want to become a US citizen, you have to show you're competent in English. [1] It's been this case for quite awhile.
I know that doesn't strictly mean that "English is the official language", but it is an official government body requiring you to know English in order to become a US citizen, so that seems a little official to me.
[1] https://www.usa.gov/naturalization
Just to clarify, "competent" is a long stretch. It's more like "how are you" -- once you can just _read_ that phrase you're passed. There are couple more questions, but civics are much harder than English (e.g. how many voting representatives are there in Congress?).
> civics are much harder than English
you can learn them all in your native language, and it really doesn't take a lot (done it).
by contrast, you then still need English competency to answer the questions.
While I appreciate the sentiment and underlying truth to what you are saying, one of the more sinister, real effects of this order will be that virtually all federal employees who are employed for multilingual reasons, can now be argued redundant. When you consider the racial and cultural backgrounds likely in foreign language speakers, the defacto action is to fire a lot of nonwhite people.
As the law exists right now, you can only specify that people speak English for official work purposes. You can't stop two Puerto Rican dudes from speaking Spanish on their break talking about unofficial topics.
I mean ... you could hassle them, ask for their passports, arrest them at gunpoint ... (all things that ICE has done to US citizens within the past week).
> I'm for having English be the national language of America
I guess it depends on what that means. I'm for all services being in English at a minimum, that makes sense. I'm really not for removing obligations to translate or interpret.
Non-english speaking US citizens exist and interact with the government. For example, someone that's deaf. Or for reading, someone that's blind. Having access in those cases is important.
But further, there's a humanity aspect as well. Any asylum seeker can get railroaded. Or heck, a visitor from another country. If these people are accused of crimes they should have the right to understand why the government is punishing them if for no other reason than to give their side of the story.
Treat others as they would like to be treated.
> I guess it depends on what that means.
A quick Google suggests that about 22% of Americans are multi-lingual, and roughly 8% of Americans do not have English as their dominant language (though I suspect that entirely non-English speaking Americans are at least one order of magnitude less).
I think only about 2% of countries in the world don't have an official language (America among them), and yet about 50% of the world is multi-lingual, so having an official language doesn't seem like an obstacle for other governments when it comes to support.
I suspect that the lack of of national language has more to do with the power struggle between the federal government and state governments then any issue, which is why I find this latest executive order quite baffling (for a party that is in the process of dismantling federal government, this is very much a federal power grab).
With all of that being said, I see it both as a recognition of the status quo, and a commitment to what is one of the greatest strengths of the United States (a single-language, single-currency market). Our largest economic rival (China) also has an enormous single-language, single-currency market, but that strength is largely focused inwards, since the use of a non-romanised language makes it very difficult for the non-Chinese reading population to adop sub-parts of the Chinese language.
Census Bureau in 2019, for people over the age of 5:
>Treat others as they would like to be treated.
I have never expected a foreign government to provide English-language materials (especially non-tourism related materials) on any of my travels to other countries. Why should that be an expectation?
I agree. If I travel to another country as a tourist, much less live there, I have zero expectation that the people there will speak to me in English. It's nice if they do, but I see it as my obligation as the outsider to bend to their ways, not the other way around. I think that similarly, if someone lives here they should be expected to learn English. They don't have to give up their native language and culture, but the onus is on them to learn our ways, not the other way around.
And yet they do [1]. I'm not saying that the expectation be there for all interactions in the country, I'm saying the expectation should be there if you are about to be charged with a crime in that country.
Why should that be an expectation? Because if you or I am being held against our will, wouldn't it be nice if you had an interpreter who could translate what the officer, lawyer, and judge are telling you? IE, if they tell you "you have to do this to not be locked up for 10 years" wouldn't it be nice to know how to comply with a ruling against you? Wouldn't it be nice if when they asked you questions you could actually answer them?
[1] https://eucrim.eu/articles/directive-201064eu-on-translation...
Nice? Sure. Do I expect it? No. I’ll go to the consulate before leaving my country to ensure I understand the laws of the country in which I’m going to be a guest, and obey those laws. In cases where I’ve needed translations, I’ve obtained them at my expense. I certainly don’t expect them to be provided freely.
What will you do if you are arrested by mistake?
Innocent people are arrested all the time. You can't just "obey all the laws" and assume you won't have a run in.
Without the legal protection to get a translator, you are assuming after being arrested you can simply call a translation service. Yet, you should know that most countries and most cops will take your cell phone.
It's a humanitarian principle that before being prosecuted you should at a minimum know why you are being prosecuted.
> I certainly don’t expect them to be provided freely.
I never said they had to (though I think they should). What's more important is that you have access to translation services.
Generally if you are a tourist, on a tourist visa, doing touristy things in a place where lots of tourists go, there will be multilingual (probably at least English) support. If you're going deep off the beaten path into China or Mexico or Russia or some other part of the world where tourists are rare and the local language is all most people know, then you should be think about how you are going to function in both ordinary and exceptional circumstances, including "what if I get arrested?"
[dead]
I hope you never have to call an emergency ambulance in a foreign country where you don’t speak the language.
> Or heck, a visitor from another country.
Trump's supporters are OVERWHELMINGLY people who would not travel to a non-English-speaking country for pleasure, except perhaps to an all-inclusive resort where they would never "have to" interact with a local (non-tourist-industry) person.
So they don't really empathize with the challenges of a less-fluent speaker in any locale. And we see that lack of empathy in many of the responses here.
They are also blissfully (aggressively?) unaware of how much their day-to-day existence, e.g. much of their food and clothing and other possessions and overall lifestyle, depend on people who don't speak fluent English.
The lack of empathy is frustrating. Especially since it seems rooted in ideas like "cops don't make mistakes" and "I can just not break the law".
In Spain all (national) government forms, documents, and services are Spanish only. Even in autonomous regions such as Catalonia that has a co-official language (Catalan,) if I want to interact with the national government, it’s Spanish only, even on immigration/residency forms.
In France, same thing. In Korea, also the same. Also China. And Mexico. Canada mandates French and English.
I see nothing wrong with a country having an official language. That doesn’t preclude people from speaking their own languages, but of you want to live in country Y, then learning that language should be a prerequisite.
[dead]
>And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself), but this executive order does not make that so.
What would be the benefit or reason for this? I am also a multilingual person, and in many of the communities where I work, the Spanish speaking population is a significant majority such that to mandate English would be sisyphean. Sadly I can't get anyone to speak German with me, despite that being equally represented among Americans at the founding of our republic.
> What would be the benefit or reason for this?
If people are not forced to speak the official language they never learn and eventually self-isolate within their own communities. This leads to the Balkanization of the country. Canada is currently dealing with this in relation to its Indian population, which is approximately equivalent to the Hispanic population in America in terms of percentage of the population and the occupations they work in.
Canada has two official languages and knowledge of one or the other is theoretically required to immigrate there, but almost all government offices and most private banks provide services in multiple languages (e.g. Mandarin, Punjabi, Tagalog, Hindi, etc.), so it's quite common for immigrants to never bother learning English or French. There's also lots of entry programs which don't require the applicant to speak either of the official languages, as well as a lot of fraud in those programs that do.
This has not had positive effects on Canada's social cohesion.
Another (somewhat ironic) example is in Mexico City, where some local residents are upset about the influx of predominantly American digital nomads and retirees changing the character of the city because they do not speak Spanish.
An official language isn't a mandate that enforces the use of English (take as an example India, which is probably the most multi-lingual country there is, but has Hindi as the "official language of the government". It's not the "national language", though in their case the splitting of hairs is probably directly tied to the number of languages spoken).
I know an American who spent several years in Paris, working in English, and never learned more French than was necessary to order her coffee. And this is despite French being the national language of France. (Interestingly enough, France is very multi-lingual as well, with many regions having their own history and language like Provençal, or Niçois, Breton, etc.).
It's more about a recognition of the status quo (as another commenter pointed out, most people acquiring US citizenship are required to demonstrate the most basic level of proficiency with the english language), and ensuring a baseline of support, no matter where you are in the country. Multi-lingualism is a plus, and in no way hindered by having a national language
> has Hindi as the "official language of the government”
First of all, I appreciate that you’ve made sure to draw this distinction between official languages of the central government and national languages.
However, English is still an official language roughly on par with Hindi as a result of indefinite extensions that were provided for in the constitution (as well as protests and uprising). For example, parliamentary legislation is authoritative in English but must also be translated into Hindi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_legal_status_in...
>What would be the benefit or reason for this?
Do you think it is a) easier and cheaper or b) harder and more expensive, to deliver services in a vast range of languages or a single language?
Of course it's cheaper and easier to deliver services in one language, but the United States is not a monolingual nation, nor has it ever been in its history. It would be a disservice to significant populations to assume otherwise.
Maybe so, but that's obviously the benefit.
Coming from North Europe, I always felt America’s loose definition of identity was its core strength.
No national religion. No national language. No centralized identity registry. Social security numbers that are more like timid suggestions than actual identifiers. Opening a bank account with just two pieces of foreign identity. Enrolling your kids in school by simply showing up and filling some forms.
I grew up in a country where I was assigned at birth with one state religion (out of two), a national language (out of three), and an ironclad digital identity number.
The American approach felt like a breath of fresh air. I — and millions of others — could choose to be someone else than what the computer says.
But the rise of Trumpism disillusioned me. Now I’m back in my home country and happily paying taxes to the state church while my children enjoy free education in four languages. What seemed like an identity straitjacket when I was younger now appears more like a spectrum of cozy options that I know how to navigate. Meanwhile America looks hell-bent on acquiring the straitjacket.
I'm confused. Is the "straitjacket" supposed to be good or bad? You seem to have ultimately happy to have chosen it for yourself but Americans choosing the same somehow disillusioned you?
I personally believe that the last few decades have shown us that a lack of unifying identity in America is a weakness, not a strength. We no longer have shared values, shared religious beliefs, shared customs, or really shared much of anything any more. And as a result, half the country viscerally hates the other half of the country. People living in cities disdainfully speak about "fly-over country" and how backwards and ignorant people are there. People living in rural areas complain about "big city liberals", and how they think they know everything but have no actual practical knowledge of anything. Both groups try to jerk the steering wheel of government back and forth with every election, and try to give even more power to the federal government so that they can use it to stop the other group from doing things they disapprove of.
In my opinion, this sort of thing greatly weakens us as a nation and will eventually destroy us if we can't figure out how to find common ground again. It should be possible - we've come back from worse (say what you will about modern day US politics, it hasn't come to civil war yet like it did in the past). But I think if we're going to find common ground, part of it will have to involve cultivating a shared national identity like we used to have.
> We no longer have shared values, shared religious beliefs, shared customs, or really shared much of anything any more.
We never had any of these, except for, possibly, just one shared belief: the idea that a constitutional democracy was the best sort of government to live under.
What we did have was a media/cultural environment that glossed over the differences between people, minimized various minority demographics, and worked hard to convince everyone that "we're all Americans and we all believe, do and want the same things". But that wasn't true then, any more than it is true today.
I want our shared national identity to be limited to our belief in our form of government. I don't want to have to know the same songs, go to the same church, drive the same car, watch the same shows as everyone else, and I don't think they should have to do that w.r.t my choices (nor are they likely to want to).
That was the beauty of "American identity", but even the belief in our form of government has been severely eroded. By whom or why ... I'll leave unremarked upon here.
shared religious beliefs, is possibly the biggest lie. As recently as the '60s there were questions about whether people would accept a "papist" president in the form of JFK. at least part of the reason why the separation of church and state existed was because otherwise it would've meant picking one of the many versions of Christianity or otherwise that had sought refuge in the US, which would mean excluding the others. The Quakers, the Puritans, the Pilgrims, the Catholics, the Anglicans, etc. were all very different and had very different opinions of each other.
Yes because America was formerly a Protestant country.
This isn’t even strictly true; Maryland, one of the original colonies, was founded as a haven for Catholics and named after a Catholic queen.
>that a lack of unifying identity in America is a weakness, not a strength
America's proper and authentic identity always is its pluralism, entailing all the conflict that brings. If America made one unique contribution to the world its that it has shown how identities, plural, can be built from the bottom up and are in constant tension with each other, and that this is a feature, not a bug.
An American government trying to impose identity, by renaming lakes and mountains, mandating language(s) or what have you is so performative it looks more like North Korean state television than culture, it's utterly foreign to Americans and going to fail for that reason. Americans are instinctively allergic to having culture, regardless from what direction, declared on them by fiat.
No national religion. No national language.
US currency says "in God we trust". The government's official communications are in English.
> making English the country's official language
I've always wondered what this actually means in practicality. The NYC MTA is still going to print the instructions for riding the train in 7 different languages. Is Taco Bell in Tulsa not allowed to print the menu in English and Spanish anymore?
Like, what is the point of this. I'm willing to accept that it's just a feel-good for the President's base. Like Gulf of America.
Generally, yes it means that in interactions with the government, there is more of an obligation for a citizen to speak English, rather than for the government to provide services in multiple languages.
It doesn't affect Taco Bell because that's a private corporation. And it doesn't affect transportation because that's also intended for travelers, visitors, etc. Nor would it affect health care.
But a good example would be driver's license exams. California offers those in 32 languages. Almost all states offer them in at least 2. If English is made the official language by legislation, there would be a strong argument to only offer driver's license exams in English.
Well, even more precisely: an executive order applies to federal workers in the executive branch. It doesn't apply to federal workers in the legislative, or judicial branches, and other sorts of workers. It certainly doesn't apply to private citizens or the states.
~98% of people employed by the federal government work in the executive branch (if we count military, postal service, etc.)
> I've always wondered what this actually means in practicality.
It means the Federal government now has a reason to not offer services in any language other than English. Before, they would offer services in Spanish, Chinese(various dialects) and other popular languages. They no longer have funding or a mandate to do that.
I think that your Taco Bell example is strictly off the table. I don't doubt that some people exist who want to make it illegal to use anything but English in the US, but realistically there isn't much political will to make that happen. So we're probably talking only passing laws which restrict the government.
As far as what that means for the government, it's hard to say because of the way government is structured here. Let's put executive orders aside and say that Congress passes a law declaring that English is the official language, and that all government communication shall happen in English and nothing else. Certainly that would apply to the federal government. It shouldn't apply to the states, because the Constitution doesn't grant that power to the federal government - but we've been blatantly ignoring the Constitution in that respect for almost a century now, so it wouldn't be surprising if we ignore it in this case too. It would almost certainly go to the Supreme Court, but it's hard to say whether they would strike the law down or decide to torture the Commerce Clause even more.
If they strike the law down or clarify that it only can apply to the federal government, then you'd probably see some states pass their own similar laws (or amend their constitutions) to achieve a similar effect. But other states would still use whatever language. If they say yes, the law can affect states as well, then obviously it would. But either way I think you wind up at a point where private parties use whatever language they feel like, while government communications are in English only (at least to some extent).
Basically, the point is to make it more difficult for non-English speakers (or people with limited language skills) to deal with the Federal government. As noted above, it's not a law and has no legal force to make private businesses do anything one way or the other.
[flagged]
> And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself)
Why are you for this? What problem does this solve, and how?
Seems to me we have made it 250 years without an official language and that this has caused approximately 0 problems.
Executive orders have force of law so your nuance is kind of wrong here. This is well covered by court precent. It's not simply an "instruction".
It's the scope. Executive orders only apply to the execution/actions of the federal government. Laws apply to the general public. The creation of laws is a legislative power, and reserved to the legislative branch of the government.
It's Okracoke, NC. The Okracoke Brogue (1997, 20 minutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Uuzr_gl4Oo
From the mountains to the sea, NC has quite a range of accents ("Voices of NC"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAGG3LnEVvI
Previously the BBC covered Tangier, VA with nearly the same headline ("The tiny US island with a British accent"):
https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20180206-the-tiny-us-isla...
Short documentary on Tangier Island:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upKqzxuJ5L4
Newscast from the 1970s about Tangier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96sHf5YDZj4
Before clicking on the link, I thought it would be and article about Tangier. A friend flew my sister and me down there many years ago. The accent was definitely unique, but calling it Elizabethan seems a bit of a stretch. We did have some of the best crab I ever ate there. Sadly, the island is disappearing, due to sea level rise.
What about the accent found on Smith Island? I believe it also has a great deal of Elizabethan English influence.
Relevant video about Smith Island and the 'High Tider' accent used by many of its inhabitants:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-ojAez_BUc
Similar for Tangier. Basically any of the small islands along the Eastern seaboard - they were historically remote and isolated.
Yeah, similarly I've heard people say that the Maine accent, particularly "down east" islanders, is similar to an English accent in some ways - I think specifically some region of England, like Yorkshire maybe??
What a lovely accent.
It really is a nice accent. I spent my most formative years in the Caribbean, and I still have a bit of an islander accent when I'm around others who have one. There's a gentleman who works at a Publix near me who is from Trinidad. The first time I met him, I only caught a slight hint of his accent. I asked him about it, and when he told me where he was from, we both immediately started speaking in full-blown island accents.
I also had two friends during my time in the Caribbean who were originally from the Outer Banks. I don't remember which island exactly, but they both had noticeable accents that were unlike anything I had ever heard at the time.
Watching videos about the various Outer Banks accents definitely reminds me of them.
What's interesting is that the accent is so different from the accent in the rest of eastern Maryland, which is a Mid Atlantic accent more similar to the one in Delaware and even New Jersey: https://youtu.be/-QgvQqg9q6Q?si=G6iGRQQuI-ZGwx8C. The accept is pretty mild in Annapolis where I am, but I have a neighbor who is from New Jersey and once I processed her accent, I could hear the same structure in how locals say words like "water" and "coffee."
Somewhat related was this article from ~2013 in TheAtavist [0] about Tangier Island in Virginia where they also still speak in an Elizabethan accent. It's about a director going to try to convince the locals to record lines from Romeo and Juliet so he can recreate it with vocal coaches and make a "authentically sounding" production. It's an interesting read, about 25 mins.
IIRC there's also a community in Maryland with the same (or similar) accent.
[0] https://magazine.atavist.com/finding-shakespeare/
Related:
On Ocracoke Island, the only American dialect that is not identified as American - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20262253 - June 2019 (73 comments)
I'm pretty sure there have been other threads about this and related topics (for example Tangier Island)...anyone?
You can't drive there as there are no bridges
To the same degree you can’t “drive there” with respect to any other island.
Ocracoke has had auto-carrying ferry service since at least the 1960’s from Hatteras and Cedar Island.
https://www.ncdot.gov/travel-maps/ferry-tickets-services/rou...
Lovely place, great campground managed by the National Park Service, if you don’t mind latrines and cold water. Right over the dunes from the beach. Spectacular views of the night sky.
There's a similar thing in Marath's Vineyard, an island south of Massachusetts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha%27s_Vineyard_Sign_Langu...
In this case, it's a unique sign language because Martha's Vineyard used to have a large population of deaf people.
I heard somewhere that we speak a mild 'Elizabethan' English in the West of Ireland... no idea if this is true really.
Although my parents use some archaic words:
"Pass me yon cup please." (Yon as in yonder = that cup)
"It's a bully old day." (bully = good, grand)
"That's a quare setup." (quare = strange)
"Oh aye... that's right." (aye* = yes) *common in Northern Ireland / Scotland too
We use "woe" a lot. (woe = misery)
Em... that's it really I suppose.
When watching the video and hear people speak, it mostly reminds me of Dale from King of the Hill. Makes me wonder if the person who inspired Dale was from there.
Are you thinking of Boomhauer?
Yes I was!
Dale speaks normally.
If folks find accents interesting, I loved this video which does a tour of US accents.
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1KP4ztKK0A (Okracoke Island is at 13:40)
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsE_8j5RL3k
[dead]