[Paleo Conservative]

In other words, these minority cultures must be regarded as having the same public importance as America's historic majority culture. Moreover, we are told, this equal and public inclusion of different cultures does not threaten our culture, but "enriches" it. By this reasoning, if we became (say) an officially bilingual society, with Spanish appearing alongside English on every cereal box and street sign in the land (as is done with the two languages of Canada), our culture would not be harmed in the slightest. We would only be including something we once excluded. We would have become something more, not less. What could be more positive? How could any decent person object?

But if all cultures are equal, why just have labels in Spanish and English? Why not French, German, Russian, Hindi, etc.? Anyway lots of Spanish speakers in this country are not really of Spanish European origin but from Central or South American Indian stock. In many cases the native languages of their ancestors were forced into extinction by Spanish imperialism. Of course the Spanish isn't even the native language of the European population of Spain. During the time of the Roman Empire, Spain was home to germanic tribes like the Goths and Vandals who spoke germanic lanquages. It was the Romans who conquered Spain who introduced Latin there. Over the centuries the Spanish language evolved from Latin. Of course even before the germanic tribes moved into Spain there were pre-existing populations of unknown origins who spoke languages that are not of Indo-European origin. Among these are the Basques. But before any of the modern human populations were in Spain there were Neanderthals there. Apparently there is no indication that the Neanderthals left any decendants in the modern populations of Europe including Spain. So anyway, if all cultures are of equal value, why just have a few Indo-European imperialist languages on the labels?

[rmlew]

But if all cultures are equal, why just have labels in Spanish and English? Why not French, German, Russian, Hindi, etc.?
1. It begins with Spanish, but laterother languages are included.
2. The size of theSpanish-speaking population makes it the most effective club to destroy Anglo-America.

Anyway lots of Spanish speakers in this country are not really of Spanish European origin but from Central or South American Indian stock. In many cases the native languages of their ancestors were forced into extinction by Spanish imperialism.
This only makes them all themosre non-Western, which makes them more useful in the attack on the cultureal bourgousie, the West.
Living in NYC, I am well aware of the number of immigrants who speak spanish as a secondary langague. (On the L-train, listening to a few from the Mexican hinterland today, I was quite pleased that they are nominally Catholic and did not have obsidian blades or stepped pyramids.)

Of course the Spanish isn't even the native language of the European population of Spain. During the time of the Roman Empire, Spain was home to germanic tribes like the Goths and Vandals who spoke germanic lanquages. It was the Romans who conquered Spain who introduced Latin there. Over the centuries the Spanish language evolved from Latin. Of course even before the germanic tribes moved into Spain there were pre-existing populations of unknown origins who spoke languages that are not of Indo-European origin. Among these are the Basques.
The Vandals invaded Hispania in the 4th century. When the Romans conquered Spain from the Carthaginians (Phoenecio-Canaanite language), Greek colonists, Celts, and Andorrans and Basques.

So anyway, if all cultures are of equal value, why just have a few Indo-European imperialist languages on the labels?
Parodying the left is pointless. Wait a generation and they will make this arguement, once they win the current cultural battle.