|
 After an emotional debate fraught with symbolism,
the Senate yesterday voted to make English the "national language" of
the United States, declaring that no one has a right to federal communications
or services in a language other than English except for those already
guaranteed by law.
The measure, approved 63 to 34, directs the government to "preserve
and enhance" the role of English, without altering current laws that
require some government documents and services be provided in other languages.
Opponents, however, said it could negate executive orders, regulations,
civil service guidances and other multilingual ordinances not officially
sanctioned by acts of Congress.
from the Washington
Post
The language wars are heating up. Together with
the English Anthem, foreign flag bans, undocumented day laborers and
building a wall or fence around our sacred ancestral land, the "National
Language" bill
is yet another indication of the fact that Americans feel insecure,
threatened, adrift, have lost faith in their leaders and the system
that produced
them, and in a natural human reaction are looking for someone to take
it out on.
Of course, they are also preparing to take it out
on politicians of both parties in the only way they know how – at the
polls. Neither of the major parties is really looking forward
to the upcoming mid-term elections, because the public mood is getting
ugly, and the scent of blood is in the air.
At times like these, we find it a shame that we
are so firmly fixed into a two-party mentality, because independents
and
indignant
outsiders would do well, if they could actually get their names
on the ballot and their faces on some screens.
Meanwhile, the English-only movement is one of the
saddest manifestations of the growing insecurity, as it goes against
time-honored American values and traditions, and masks a grave national
shortcoming – the Chauvinistic notion that English is the only language
worth speaking, and the only one needed to be an educated, fully developed
human being.
Listen, folks, speaking only one language is nothing
to be proud of. Quite the contrary – it limit not only one’s ability
to
communicate
with millions of people, and to appreciate significant fractions
of the world’s art, music and literature, but limits the way one can
think about life, conceptualize problems, and arrive at solutions.
Multilingualism is an asset, both in an individual
and in a population. Having three official languages doesn’t seem to
have done Switzerland any harm.
There are groups of Native Americans living among
us who speak languages heard on these shores a thousand years before
the first English-speaker arrived. What right do we have to tell these
people what language to speak? Their ancestors have been here 50 times
longer than ours.
In 1776, the nascent United States of America was
far from an "English-only" environment. There were families, towns,
parts of cities and sections of entire states, where the people spoke
French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Swedish as well as Native American
languages.
American English owes more than lip service to these
additional languages. We took words like chowder, praline, prairie,
bureau, cent and dime from the French; they were not used in England.
From Spanish we incorporated poncho, bronco, siesta, sombrero, canyon,
enchilada, taco and tequila. From Dutch we got cole slaw, cookie, waffle,
sleigh, boss, Yankee and Santa Claus. German provided delicatessen,
hamburger, pretzel, beer garden.
Lexical contributions seeped in from all directions.
Native American languages contributed words like hickory, pecan, chipmunk,
squaw, papoose, wigwam and racoon. By the time of the Revolution Africans
were pouring into the new world, many slaves and a few Freedmen, and
they brought words like gumbo, jazz, voodoo, okra and chigger.
The point is that America has always been, and continues
to be, multi-lingual, despite the laziness and provincialism of those
who can’t be bothered to learn a second language, and the best efforts
of politicians who are catering to, and fomenting, fear of "the other".
We agree that for the "common good" as well as full,
unfettered participation in a functional democracy, the goal of having
everyone speak a common language is admirable. It is even reasonable
to expect that those who go through the existing or proposed process
of applying for and being granted residency, and then applying for
and completing the requirements for citizenship, which takes at least
five years, should be able to demonstrate a functional knowledge of
English in order to complete the process.
But there is something profoundly unAmerican about
ordering anyone, or any group, to speak, or dress, or worship, or eat,
or behave in a certain way. The Bill of Rights guarantees Freedom of
Speech, but doesn’t add (in English).
Having a "National Language" and
requiring everyone to speak it sounds good,
and allows
Senators
and
Reps to beat
their chests and loudly proclaim they are getting tough on illegal
aliens, but think about some of the people who would be affected:
Many people have a second-language specific learning disability.
We know this, as were were certified by the
eminent Harvard linguist Dr.
Dinkledge, as suffering from this syndrome. In addition, there
are millions of dyslexics, deaf-mutes or otherwise disabled individuals
who may
not be ABLE to learn English. Should they be disenfranchised?
In addition, while we can all agree that kids in
public schools should learn English (and at least one or two other
languages) what about older people, grandparents from the old country,
immigrating to reunite families or to escape oppression. This is nothing
new – there are parents and grandparents behind us all who
spoke imperfect English or no English at all. In neighborhoods
like Boston’s North End and Milwaukee’s meat-packing district, there
are grandmothers who STILL speak no English. Should we get rid of them,
too?
The bottom line is that this "Official Language"
brouhaha, like the Spanish Anthem dust-up, are oratorical distractions,
political prestidigitation, non-stories being manipulated by public
figures to disguise and redirect the very real anger and moral malaise
of the
American
public.
What bothers the Dowbrigade most of all in this
area, is that historically, American xenophobia has risen and fallen
with the economy. When the stock market goes down, and inflation,
interest rates and most importantly, unemployment, go up, American
discontent often settles on the idle outsiders congregated in our central
cities, living off the public trough and looking for work.
This time, the anti-immigrant fever is clearly
rising even though unemployment is low and the economy seems to be
humming along. We don’t even want to think about where this could
lead if (when?) the economic indicators head south.
|
