cross-posted from: https://linux.community/post/3497784
Example: several of my former coworkers are from Mexico, Peru and Argentina, meaning they share Spanish as a common language.
I used to practice Spanish with them, but my last charge (like a ward’s manager) would yell at us to stop it, use English only. She would get very angry really fast if she heard anything in a language she didn’t understand.
I find it stupid, because some of them would use Spanish to better explain to the new nurses how to do certain procedures, but maybe I’m missing something?
I don’t agree. Forcing people to use a language they are less comfortable with just so others can eavesdrop has nothing to do with “politeness.”
It’s not eavesdropping lol. I worked a company that was primarily Chinese people at the head office and they made a rule of speaking in English for inclusivity.
The post references any usage of spanish as bannable. There’s a difference between workers speaking spanish with each other while someone who only speaks English is present, and workers speaking spanish with each other when nobody else is involved with the conversation. I also worked at a company with a huge portion of speakers that were uncomfortable with speaking English despite myself only speaking English, any attempt to ban their language would hurt the company.
Right? Hence context
I am directly replying to the context listed out by the user, which in this case seems to be racist and anti-worker.
And I am directly replying to you saying there is context and I specifically said not always
It is always negative in the case of the user’s context with the information we have. You implied an entirely different situation, meaning it’s an entirely different question.
It’s not an entirely different question. This is how conversations work on message boards. You say something in response to the post, and people add to the conversation. In this particular situation with the OP it could be racism, it could be dissuading people from talking about unions, quite simply all you’re doing is guessing, because you don’t have the entire story. I added that there could be more, not flat out denying what you said, saying there is context that could be the reason for situations such as this.
The context in the OP outright states anger at any use of spanish, period. This has nothing to do with “politeness,” and is always some form of racism or worker control. If OP had stated that this was only the case when said charge was involved in the conversations and felt left out, then this is a different context from the one OP provided.
You came in here trying to invent a situation that is, at its fundamentals, unique from what OP described.
You mean, what you ignored?
Lol no, i clearly didn’t
I think you should have asked what context was being referred to.
I can’t really imagine a context where it would be a politeness thing unless the English-only speaker was actively involved in the conversation but was being intentionally shut-out, and not because it was easier to convey in non-English languages but deliberately for spite.
Well said!
It isn’t the context brought up in the post body, so no, it doesn’t completely negate my point. The post is talking about banning any and all use of spanish, period, and the other user came in trying to talk about a different situation entirely.