3 questions

<The authors of those questions are refering to people who move out of the region where their language is dominant and refuse to learn or use the dominant language of their new home.  >

Sorry? You mentioned Basque Separatists. Why? How are they relevant to your argument?

Anonymous

<Their questions attack the premise that it behooves a person to assimilate linguistically, which is an ignorant position at best and a woefully irresponsible one at worst.>

Would you say it is equally an ignorant and irresponsible position to have the premise that it behooves every person to assimilate linguistically?

This question, and indeed the questions we are asked to comment on, seem to me to forget the primary purpose of language - communication. The extent to which the members of an immigrant community feel they want to become assimilated into the host community is a matter that should be left entirely to them, but the fact remains that whatever they decide they do need to be able to be able to communicate with the host community. Of course no one should be forced to speak a particular language any more than they should be forced to wear particular clothes or adopt a different religion, but it cannot possibly be to anyone's detriment to speak a language used by the community at large.

Anonymous

Sorry? You mentioned Basque Separatists. Why? How are they relevant to your argument?

 

 

actually, I made the point that I'm not going to argue for or against the premise behind the questions, and thus far I have strayed from making any case for or against that argument.

 

I merely wanted to point out where the questions came from so that the OP would have a better understanding of the questions themselves.  The Basque separatist thing was one of four examples I gave of commom 'pet issues' among postmodern sociolinguists and anthropological linguists. By no means was I saying that Basque people in the Basque region of Spain should be forced to speak any language. 

WE STILL FWENDZ MR ANONIMUS???

Anonymous

Which means, in the case of the Basques, it is the Spanish, mostly Castillano-speaking, immigrants into the Basque region who should have learned Basque, right?

It would make sense for them to learn the language, but it's not a necessity.  And on top of that, if the group of people moving into a given region intend to (a) set up their own communities, (b) maintain their linguistic and cultural identities, (c) reject the host community's culture and language, and (d) not associate with the host community on a day-to-day basis, then it's not really worth the effort for most people.

The issue gets cloudy when we start to get into the intention of said 'immigrants'.  Some would argue that the English were immigrants in North America. Others would draw a distinction and call them colonists.  The idea that a piece of land is the determiner for which language should be spoken is also asinine. The factors that determine what language a person speaks ahould be economic and social. 

So, to answer your question: Not if they decided that they don't want to participate in the Basque culture or economy.

Not all Basques are Basque-speaking, just as all Welsh are not Welsh speaking.

They were when the Spanish first moved into the Basque region.