Let me start by trying to put my soapbox away...
I decided to look at the US English Facebook page in order to understand a perspective different than my own. The US English website makes some (relatively) fair and honest arguments about the history of English in the US, but what do its supporters say? Surely they have logical, sound arguments as well.
The first post I read: "US law has to be clear to all citizens, therefore all citizens need to know one language."
Oh dear. There are too many assumptions and logical fallacies for me to describe here...
Further down the page: this picture.
Surely that picture comments on that man's impolite gesture in relation to his language of choice and not the color of his skin, right?
Another gentleman: "I will work hard to recruit members as well as work to make English the Official language of the United States."
He must've accidentally hit shift on that one. Forgivable mistake. He's still in high school...
On the topic of Puerto Rico's commonwealth status: "all leeches..."
Or another poster: "If they become a state, they lose their "nationality" and become Americans.... therefore, welcome to hard work and speaking English! You will no longer be able to refer to your heritage as "Puerto Rican" -- that will be gone, because you will be Americans and salute the Stars & Stripes! (BTW, our National Anthem is in English too!)"
And another: "Down here in Texas if two people looking at same job the one that speaks english & spanish will get the job even if he is not as qualified for it.This is why the White male is the one being discriminated against the most. All over the USA."
There we have it. Finally. Language and race, intertwined and interconnected. See, I am not trying to say that the two are always one and the same. Instead, I am arguing that there is an undercurrent of racism hidden in the "English Only" movement. Just looking at some of the lovely quotations above, we can see how people connect language to race, to the idea that Puerto Ricans (and possibly all immigrants?) are welcome to learn "hard work" upon achieving statehood, and that non-white, non-English speakers corrupt the moral and/or social framework of the country. How can you tell that the guy in the picture doesn't speak? Because his skin is darker? How do you know he wasn't born and raised with the English language? Because he makes a vulgar, un-American gesture?
Unfortunately, this is one of the many reasons I cannot support any push for English to be the official language of the US. I also disagree with the idea that one language equals one nation or vice versa, and that the "White male is the one being discriminated against the most," and that the cost would be too great for the government to bear. But most of all, I cannot stand by a movement with such racist sentiment lurking below the surface of its arguments.
Oops, did my soapbox sneak out again?
Stupid soapbox.
ReplyDeleteLet's go back to the first comment and break it down (it belongs to a Ms. Virginia D. Sheckler for those of you keeping score at home).
"US law has to be clear to all citizens, therefore all citizens need to know one language."
Maybe. Debatable, I admit. Speaking English is definitely helpful, but you can probably understand US law without speaking English, or at least enough to keep you out of trouble. Indeed, most people have only a cursory understanding of what the law actually is - hence the need for lawyers. I would be interested to look at the crime/incarceration rate for non-English speakers and see how it relates to English speakers. Obviously it would be impossible to control for race and the fact that non-English speakers are more likely to get arrested (DWB), get longer sentence, etc. Still though - many English-speakers manage to get themselves arrested.
"We have the right to SPEAK any language we choose, but if you are not taught or given the oppertunity to learn English than it's no longer a choice. This is not only hindering to any mem...ber [sic?] of society who is UNABLE to speak or understand English, but also for others who wish to educate, employ or empower them as US citizens."
This I agree with. The English-only movement is not going ban the use of other languages (or at least the English Language Amendment will not; I can't speak for the true intentions of U.S. English). The proposed ELA, to me, reads like a social contract: the government will embrace English for official purposes. In return, the government will provide for you the opportunity to learn English (in a way that it is effective and takes into account the difficulties of learning a language, etc.) Regardless of whether or not English is the de jure official language, non-English speakers are unquestionable de facto worse off in American society. If English speakers have more de facto rights in society, it seems to me more logical to work (including spending money) to teach non-English speakers English.
We do this all the time in society. We want to be treated a certain way from society, so we must do a certain thing. If I want a certain job, I must have the credentials - so I go to college. The government doesn't mandate that I need a college degree (there is no de jure requirement) but there is a societal de facto requirement. Which would make more sense - the government getting rid of de facto societal standards (unlikely to happen short of massive social engineering and a complete re-creation of American society) or enabling people to meet those de facto societal standards? Yes, perhaps it is arbitrary and unfair to require that immigrants learn English in order to be treated the same as English-speakers. I think it is easier, though, to provide for better and more effective education than to try to change American society
"Two things have to eixst if English is to be the official language, required learning of the English language, and required teaching funded by the US Government. Yep, we should pick up the tab. You can't expect or require someone to know what they are not taught, and then not support the oppertunity to learn."
I agree. What is the problem with this? If we pay the money and provide a fair opportunity for people to learn English (in a reasonable amount of time, with quality instruction, etc.), then why is it problematic if English is the official language. Yes, this might be expensive. We already have though the Americans with Disabilities Act which requires huge amounts of state, local, and federal funding, especially in education. If legislation requires that public schools accomodate an autistic child who will never learn to even live independently, let alone make a net economic contribution to society, why can't we spend money to teach English to immigrants who would likely contribute positively (in both quantifiable and unquantifiable ways) to society.