|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kimchi Cha Cha
Joined: 15 May 2003
Location: was Suncheon, now Brisbane
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I agree that the US's rise to economic supremacy and quest for natural resources predominately led to globalisation with English being the international language of business. Though, I think people are also discounting the UK and its continual role in this. Sure, the British Empire fell and the influence of Britain is a fraction of what it once was. But, the UK is still a significant player in world trade.
For example, why do Europeans continually seek out and learn British English as opposed to American English? Surely, if Britain is so insignificant to world trade and the US so powerful, wouldn't the opposite be true with American English being indisputably the preferred form of English?
Let's imagine the Romanians colonised the US (and nowhere else). The British still had their Empire all across the world which progressively crumpled throughout the 20th century. But, Americans only spoke Romanian, and opposed even learning another language. WWII ends and the US is an economic superpower. Yet no else speaks Romanian (apart from Romania, of course). Millions take up Romanian to trade with the US but do you really think 60 years down the track, Romanian would have the all encompassing scope and presence English has?
I don't think so. Therefore, the foundation laid by the British gave the US a significant leg up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JD_Tiberius
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cincynate wrote: |
| As an American I agree that the Brittish laid the foundation for the spread of the English language. However, Brittian's reign was during a non globalized culture. There was little global commerce except for a few spices and what not. Most of the commerce was done between the terrirories the Brittish had conquored. Globalization was started by the US with their search for ever cheaper labor abroad. If the brittish had such a huge influence in international commerce, why is everything traded in Dollars and not pounds?? No matter how you put it, the Americans are responsible for the spread of English as the language of Business. BTW.. i think in 20 years, my children will be learning from their Native Chinese teacher!! |
Actually, pre-ww2, the Pound Sterling was the closest thing to a global currency. WW2 forced the UK into a state of near bankruptcy (Rationing went on well into the 1950s). War does that, it brings down former powers and replaces them with new powers.
(this isnt aimed at you cincynate, rather its aimed at the very first 2 posters) Anyway, this pointless bickering between American and British citizens is a joke. Get over yourselves and accept that things like this are a joint effort. if you think Britain OR the USA were the sole reasons why English is in the position it is in today, then, quite frankly I'm surprised you even got into a university in the first place... It takes a special kind of person to be THAT ignorant.
Last edited by JD_Tiberius on Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brickabrack
Joined: 17 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimchi Cha Cha wrote: |
Sorry to deflate ya tyres Kenny but I'd say the British and their Empire had as much, if not more, to do with the prominence of English than the US. Sure, the US has been the dominant superpower of the past sixty years and has made great strides in strengthening the presence of English throughout the world.
But, they were given a very, very substantial leg-up by the economic, lingual, legal and cultural structures left over from the British. Why do you think Malaysians, Indians, Pakistanis use English as a standard for communication when doing business both within and within outside their countries? Hell, why do Australians, Canadians and Americans speak English in the first place?
The British provided the ladder and equipment for the Americans to walk on. |
I think the last 60 or so years is what Kenny is emphasizing.
Also, world wide, west coast N Americans have the most easily
discernable and undertandable accent of all English speakers
around. I do know some very understandable English folk and
some dispicable 'Mercan accenters. By and large, most developing nations prefer the accent (and enunciation) of west coasters.
I think the stats are more like 16-17% and 12-13%, swinewhoo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brickabrack
Joined: 17 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Therefore, the foundation laid by the British gave the US a significant leg up."
Of course it did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shostahoosier
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
If it hadn't been for the crash in the US economy, the majority of US refugees that we are seeing in Asia would be much lower (I don't know how many US lawyer's resumes I have had pass over my desk in the last year or so but the number was staggering). More Americans are trying to flee the states than there are Mexicans trying to get in.
America = the new Mexico.
|
I usually agree with you Ttompatz (almost religiously) but this is a bit of an exaggeration.
About 90% of my friends that have returned to the US (from Korea) are employed - and I'm not talking "McJobs" either. I actually cant wait to return, but I'm doing one more year to save for a huge trip I'm planning.
And as for the lawyer thing, the problem is law schools have put a lot of work into convincing people that a JD will pay big bucks. Most people dont know that the average lawyer only makes about $50K a year and that the big bucks only come from the Tier 1 law schools (and a lot of work).
There were too many law school grads flooding the market before the US economy collapsed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shostahoosier wrote: |
| ttompatz wrote: |
If it hadn't been for the crash in the US economy, the majority of US refugees that we are seeing in Asia would be much lower (I don't know how many US lawyer's resumes I have had pass over my desk in the last year or so but the number was staggering). More Americans are trying to flee the states than there are Mexicans trying to get in.
America = the new Mexico.
|
I usually agree with you Ttompatz (almost religiously) but this is a bit of an exaggeration.
About 90% of my friends that have returned to the US (from Korea) are employed - and I'm not talking "McJobs" either. I actually cant wait to return, but I'm doing one more year to save for a huge trip I'm planning.
And as for the lawyer thing, the problem is law schools have put a lot of work into convincing people that a JD will pay big bucks. Most people dont know that the average lawyer only makes about $50K a year and that the big bucks only come from the Tier 1 law schools (and a lot of work).
There were too many law school grads flooding the market before the US economy collapsed. |
It was a bit of hyperbole and it was more for emphasis than a statement of truth but the fact remains that the numbers of recent US grads looking to go abroad to seek employment and/or refuge from crushing student loans (as compared to those simply seeking a gap year before beginning a career) has gone up in a significant way since 2007/8 and not just in Korea.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AsiaESLbound
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Location: Truck Stop Missouri
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
| Kennyftw wrote: |
| ha. how pathetic. If it weren't for the US, you'd still be in the UK or somewhere else rotting. America is WHY English is international language of commerce and why you have a job here. You should get on your knees and thank the "yanks." You are piggy backing on the accomplishments of the United States, so shut your trolling, pretentious mouth up and get in your place. |
53 countries in the commonwealth (the US is not among them).
ALL but 1 of them have English as an official language.
2.4 billion people in countries (not including the states) with English as an official language and with English as the primary language of (big) business the their judicial system.
300 million people in the states (1/3 of whom do not speak English as a primary language).
Linguistically, you won't find "Webster's" English in any place that was not directly tied to the US (like its dependencies).
Outside of pirated Hollywood movies the US not all that important (except perhaps in their own minds) as a driving force in the globalization of English.
If it hadn't been for the crash in the US economy, the majority of US refugees that we are seeing in Asia would be much lower (I don't know how many US lawyer's resumes I have had pass over my desk in the last year or so but the number was staggering). More Americans are trying to flee the states than there are Mexicans trying to get in.
America = the new Mexico.
AS to the "Why do we see fewer Americans in EPIK?" I can only make an educated guess that it is largely due to the difficulty that many were surprised with in obtaining their documents last spring (after the rules changed) and the subsequent delays in their applications. The number of applicants from the states has actually risen since then.
. |
Your extensive knowledge on teaching in Asia and your willingness to take the time to share it is greatly appreciated, but this is a huge insult. The new Mexico? US Refugees? Where do you get these ideas?
America is the one and only immigrant country which is the one with the greatest cultural diversity, but maybe it's not the utopia we all wished for due to diversity failing with significant voluntary segregation, fear, gross ignorance, racism, insane politics with a faltering country system, and lack of trust of fellow Americans. Since our ancestors were willing to permanently leave Europe behind for new opportunities, Americans toda y are also willing to leave the USA behind when opportunities are greater in another land, but most willing to fly away just want to travel to learn more about the world, because they realize too many Americans know too little about the world.
For the first time, you said something I felt was incorrect and stupid, but you are right about the decline in American teachers resulting from the difficult of obtaining documents. I'll add that because our slow outdated country system serving us at a snails pace with no intent to enable us to better prosper.
Last edited by AsiaESLbound on Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shostahoosier
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
| shostahoosier wrote: |
| ttompatz wrote: |
If it hadn't been for the crash in the US economy, the majority of US refugees that we are seeing in Asia would be much lower (I don't know how many US lawyer's resumes I have had pass over my desk in the last year or so but the number was staggering). More Americans are trying to flee the states than there are Mexicans trying to get in.
America = the new Mexico.
|
I usually agree with you Ttompatz (almost religiously) but this is a bit of an exaggeration.
About 90% of my friends that have returned to the US (from Korea) are employed - and I'm not talking "McJobs" either. I actually cant wait to return, but I'm doing one more year to save for a huge trip I'm planning.
And as for the lawyer thing, the problem is law schools have put a lot of work into convincing people that a JD will pay big bucks. Most people dont know that the average lawyer only makes about $50K a year and that the big bucks only come from the Tier 1 law schools (and a lot of work).
There were too many law school grads flooding the market before the US economy collapsed. |
It was a bit of hyperbole and it was more for emphasis than a statement of truth but the fact remains that the numbers of recent US grads looking to go abroad to seek employment and/or refuge from crushing student loans (as compared to those simply seeking a gap year before beginning a career) has gone up in a significant way since 2007/8 and not just in Korea.
. |
Oh, yeah, I cant disagree with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
creeper1
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK. 200 years 1700 - 1900 we can give the British credit for the spread of English.
100 years we can give the credit to Americans. 1908 - 2008. I am choosing 2008 since it was the date of the financial crisis and the beginning of the decline of the US.
Now get back to enjoying the fruits of your life that you got off the backs of your ancestors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| creeper1 wrote: |
OK. 200 years 1700 - 1900 we can give the British credit for the spread of English.
100 years we can give the credit to Americans. 1908 - 2008. I am choosing 2008 since it was the date of the financial crisis and the beginning of the decline of the US.
Now get back to enjoying the fruits of your life that you got off the backs of your ancestors. |
Actually, to be more historically accurate, we can thank the Brits for the period from Dec. 1600 (formation of the East India Trading Co.) to 1940 (the 2nd world war) when they lost direct control of most of their overseas holdings/colonies.
The Americans have ruled the roost since 1945 (making it about 65 years) even though a number of Americans think that global trade started with them  .
Score for globalization of English: Brits - 340 years, Yanks - 65 years.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rainism
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
| creeper1 wrote: |
OK. 200 years 1700 - 1900 we can give the British credit for the spread of English.
100 years we can give the credit to Americans. 1908 - 2008. I am choosing 2008 since it was the date of the financial crisis and the beginning of the decline of the US.
Now get back to enjoying the fruits of your life that you got off the backs of your ancestors. |
Actually, to be more historically accurate, we can thank the Brits for the period from Dec. 1600 (formation of the East India Trading Co.) to 1940 (the 2nd world war) when they lost direct control of most of their overseas holdings/colonies.
The Americans have ruled the roost since 1945 (making it about 65 years) even though a number of Americans think that global trade started with them .
Score for globalization of English: Brits - 340 years, Yanks - 65 years.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
. |
agreed, but the East India Trading Co was merely a colonization vehicle to reap the "fruits" of foreign colonies.
(you could argue the US did the same thing, albeit in a more disguised way, when it supported puppet anti Commie dictators all over Latin America, for the benefit of US companies like United Fruit, etc, but the Americans clearly learned a more subtle and effective way to do this rather than outright colonization)
Bottom line is that Americans were a hell of a lot more "productive" with their 65 years than the Brits were with their 340. I suppose technology and ease of travel/access has a lot to do with that, but one shouldn't whine over spilled milk.
I have little to no quarrel with Brits, and generally admire them (save the white trash soccer hooligan, and perpetually drunk holiday crowd) but when some *beep* steps in looking to stir the hornet's nest, as the OP clearly intended, I'm more than happy to get my sting, or two, in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamesd
Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nationalism at it's best. 
As far as I'm concerned, if it wasn't for the U.S., the whole Europe will be speaking Gernman and Asia, Japanese. And we wouldn't be here teaching Japanese today, would we?
God save the U.S.! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rainism wrote: |
agreed, but the East India Trading Co was merely a colonization vehicle to reap the "fruits" of foreign colonies.
(you could argue the US did the same thing, albeit in a more disguised way, when it supported puppet anti Commie dictators all over Latin America, for the benefit of US companies like United Fruit, etc, but the Americans clearly learned a more subtle and effective way to do this rather than outright colonization)
Bottom line is that Americans were a hell of a lot more "productive" with their 65 years than the Brits were with their 340. I suppose technology and ease of travel/access has a lot to do with that, but one shouldn't whine over spilled milk. |
They may have been better at plunder (with the aid of modern technology) than the Brits (arguable) but in terms of spreading English as a global language (the topic of discussion if not the topic of the thread) then, not really (time frame was too short).
In fact, it could be said that America was nothing more than a small piece of that globalization of "English" back in the early 1700's (or they would be speaking French or Spanish now instead of English).
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamesd
Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
| rainism wrote: |
agreed, but the East India Trading Co was merely a colonization vehicle to reap the "fruits" of foreign colonies.
(you could argue the US did the same thing, albeit in a more disguised way, when it supported puppet anti Commie dictators all over Latin America, for the benefit of US companies like United Fruit, etc, but the Americans clearly learned a more subtle and effective way to do this rather than outright colonization)
Bottom line is that Americans were a hell of a lot more "productive" with their 65 years than the Brits were with their 340. I suppose technology and ease of travel/access has a lot to do with that, but one shouldn't whine over spilled milk. |
They may have been better at plunder (with the aid of modern technology) than the Brits (arguable) but in terms of spreading English as a global language (the topic of discussion if not the topic of the thread) then, not really (time frame was too short).
In fact, it could be said that America was nothing more than a small piece of that globalization of "English" back in the early 1700's (or they would be speaking French or Spanish now instead of English).
. |
If it wasn't for the Tea Rebellion, the U.S. would be another one of those Queen serving British Commonwealth. I guess Brit's are kicking themselves now, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itistime
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jamesd wrote: |
Nationalism at it's best.
As far as I'm concerned, if it wasn't for the U.S., the whole Europe will be speaking Gernman and Asia, Japanese. And we wouldn't be here teaching Japanese today, would we?
God save the U.S.! |
Nationalism ... is like cheap alcohol. First it makes you drunk, then it makes you blind, then it kills you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
