Introducing: Civ-Cons!
Or at least introducing a new label. John Fonte's National Review article can be found here, at Asiansmith's request. (He really should have contributer status.) My question, however, is what's driving the need for more and more labels in the conservative arena? Is it a need to re-brand the party as big-tent, or a self-serving measure to differentiate from a conservative movement run out of steam?
Also, what do y'all think about Fonte's desire for a national voice, et al. Discuss!
Also, what do y'all think about Fonte's desire for a national voice, et al. Discuss!
posted by Pascals Bookie @ 1:52 PM
12 Comments:
Umm... AsianSmiths has had contributor status for sometime now. Is he unable to post?
I'm curious what you think of it, and more importantly AsianSmiths himself, given the xenophobic nature of Fonte's proposals.
Some of them don't seem so bad, such as learning more about the Constitution and civics in school. However, I wonder if opponents of bilingual education realize that it's not intended to be, you know, a 12-year program. I am not an expert on this, but I don't see a problem with teaching kids in their native language, while learning English, so that they're not left behind.
Also, this point: "the rejection of extra-territorial sovereignty for Native Hawaiians and American Indians (e.g., no exemption from state gambling laws) on the basis of race;"
Is it really on the basis of race? I was under the impression that it was, you know, because this was their land first and we kind of screwed it out of them. But what do I know, my high school taught us about multiculteralism. Clearly I did not get a good education.
As for the article itself: I didn't have any major disagreements with this article at all. I rather liked it.
Now perhaps your eyes are better than mine, but I didn't discern an overwhelming xenophobia in this article. Where does the author single out a group of foreigners for particular invective?
Moreover, I think there are a thousand misconceptions when it comes to the subject of English as an official language. If English were the official language, that would mean our official documents and signs would be in English. All official business would have to be conducted in English. This doesn't mean people are going to be prevented from speaking whichever language they choose at home.
At the same time, please explain to me why bilingual education is so worthy of preservation. Your concern that students not get "left behind," baffles me. Left behind what? Is math a train that we have to catch before it leaves the station?
If your concern is that immigrant children will fall behind their age group's progress, I would respectfully tell you that I think this concern is misplaced. To put it mildly, American public schools are not the most... taxing of environments on the young mind. This is especially true when one compares them with public education in countless other countries. An immigrant child, having throughly mastered English, could catch up to her age cohort in no time. And I bet her English would be better than theirs!
The main point of the article - which I agree with - is that for America to remain a viable experiment in self-government, we have to some common and cohesive elements. What is so radical about this? Let me go further and switch the burden of proof: how many multi-ethnic nations have been successful republics or democracies, in which ethnic identity was the key mark of social organization? Yugoslavia? Iraq? The Soviet Union?
Yet the less willing we are to "Americanize" (to use the author's turn of phrase) new immigrants, the closer we get to just such a jubled disunion. What holds those kinds of nations together? Force.
I would say the group of foreigners he selects out for xenophobic zeal (very fun phrase, by the way) is any immigrant who doesn’t speak English.
And “I think there are a thousand misconceptions when it comes to the subject of English as an official language. If English were the official language, that would mean our official documents and signs would be in English. All official business would have to be conducted in English.”
No, there’s no misconception there. At least not with me. And I don’t have a problem with signs and documents being in other languages besides English. English is our main language. To become successful in America, you need to know English. That hasn’t changed in 250 years of heavy immigration, and that’s not changing anytime soon. And immigrants know this. They don’t (well, most don’t) willfully decide that English is unnecessary to learn. They just don’t all come here with a solid grasp of the language. So I don’t see anything wrong with having, well, immigration documents in several languages, to help those who move here, legally, and want to fill out the paperwork but do not understand English. It’s fine if you have a support system in place, or can find someone in the community or the government to help you, but not everyone has that, and I don’t think you should be screwed out of the system for that reason
That would be my reason for supporting bilingual education as well. I suppose our other option is to have immigrant children enroll in intensive English classes, and then later enter regular school. For me, it’s one and the same. If someone is in the country, paying taxes, participating in the economy, their children are owed an education. If you think otherwise, well, that’s another argument for another post. However, I’m for whatever option will best educate all US citizens and residents, and won’t get children who’ve come from a variety of countries and education levels discouraged, simply because they don’t speak English.
Also, when I read these stories one thought always occurs to me: I’d love it if someone could point out to me the magical point in time when the United States was one united country, without different ethnic groups, geographic regions, and political ideas constantly at odds with each other. I’m not sure if that existed. People come here looking for a better life for themselves and their family. That’s never changed. If we want to stress participation in government, well, we should start with native citizens.
Kelly:
1.) RE: Bi-lingual education - I agree with you in that if a child already has a good foundation in one language, he or she should not be expected to abandon it completely for English. However, English should still be the primary language of instruction where ever possible, and furthermore all education at the primary school level (k-12) should focus on making at least one of the child’s native language English. This should be done simply for ease of communication between citizens. However, I’m not sure if that’s what bi-lingual education already does right now, or if it simply puts the child on another track in a foreign language and doesn’t lead them back to English. Furthermore, I agree with Tacitean’s assessment. I went into a NYC public school with no English ability whatsoever and without bi-lingual education, and even though the ESL classes were pretty much useless (but had nice teachers, though), I only lost about one year before I caught up with everyone. I just wish I could’ve held on to my Chinese better as well as becoming fluent in English.
2.) RE: Multi-Lingualism in General – Again, I agree with your position in principal, which is newly arriving immigrants should not be presented immediately upon arrival with a my-way-or-the-highway ultimatium when it comes to learning the English language. Immigration services, health care services (especially of the emergency variety), social services (such as libraries) should not be restricted to English only, because they patently serve many people who do not speak English, in situations where it’s not their fault they can’t speak English. Many people simply say that the Italians, Poles, Jews, Germans, or whatever that came before this current wave of immigration did not enjoy many of these government services in their own language. Well that’s true, but that’s only true because many of these government services simply did not exist back then. The services that that were in their place were organized and run privately by the mostly monolinguistic, mostly non-English community, and they were certainly speaking Polish, Yiddish, Italian, or whatever, to these immigrants until they could adapt and learn English. Therefore, what we are doing right now is no different than what was being done a hundred years ago in the Five-Points neighborhoods, only we’re doing it all over the country instead of just in a few select places on the coasts and the southern border.
Tacitean
1.) RE: American Unity – I would just like to point out that the 26 cantons of the Helvetic Confederation, aka Switzerland seems to have been doing well for the last few hundred years even though they have three official languages and clear ethnic divisions between the majority Germans and minority French and Italians. The same could be said of the Benelux states up in North Europe, especially Belgium in particular, with Dutch, German and French as their state languages. Furthermore, the various regions of these states are divided between the ethnic groups in these states; the eastern cantons of Switzerland are mostly French speaking, one major canton in the south are Italian speaking, etc. Clearly, a multi-lingual and multi-ethnic democratic republic is not a contradiction in terms. Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and Iraq were failures in organizing a multi-ethnic state, but that does not [i] ipso facto [/i] mean that sucessful multi-ethnic democracies are impossible to organize. In fact, I would argue that in all those instances, divergent ethnicities was only the visible way by which these states failed and not the underlying reason why they failed.
I don't see why everyone is taking this "English as Official Language" issue as some sort of affront to individual cultural identity. no one is saying that people should abandon their native tongue or culture.
Kelly: It is not unreasonable to ask that people speak English in this country. Most people speak it already. Those that don't are in a minority that continues to alienate themselves form the rest of American culture. There are places in Chicago where no one speaks English. I don't know the language, so I'm not comfortable in those areas, ergo, I do not venture into those areas. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't go to places where I can't communicate effectively with the native population. Is this an irrational standpoint? I wouldn't move to Germany without knowing German or to Italy without knowing Italian, so why do people move here without knowing the language? For jobs... yes, I know. I would still want to know the language so I didn't feel so out of place as to not be a functional member of that society.
To AsianSmith's point, it is possible to rapidly catch up to one's peers, once having mastered the local language. There are plenty of bi-lingual families in America, where English is spoken in the general arena, and their native tongue is spoken at home. Without passing judgment or being in any way critical, I would assume that AsianSmith's family did not practice that as much, or at least didn't put as much emphasis on maintaining his Chinese linguistics. This is a phenomenon I've been hearing about, recently (on NPR)—where adults are going to Chinese, Japanese, Thai or what-have-you lessons to relearn their native tongue along-side of children.
My point is, it should be the responsibility of the family—and not the government—to maintain a connection with their native languages and cultures, but be a responsible member of the local culture and society.
This is a standard that should be upheld in any country with any language... not just in America with English.
Gaufridus: I agree with the above comments. Good to have you back on board, by the by!
AsianSmiths: Switzerland is a pretty solid counter-example to my general point, but I urge you to consider that, well, it's Switzerland. The creation of their confederation (and subsequent enaction to strengthen it) was not an attempt to reconcile themselves with an influx of people of different nationalities. Rather it was more an understanding reached by different groups that were already there. Might I also note the importance of de-centralization in making that solution stick?
Your mention of the Benelux is more instructive. To be sure, they've been able to construct a polity based on the ethnic groups who were already there, but what about the immigration of Muslims? It seems to me that precisely the problem in that case is the failure to do precisely what I'm advocating for in the case of America. On which subject we generally agree, of course.
So it will be interesting for me to see how the Benelux situation - and the French one, as well - develop. How will these countries define themselves? What degree of assimiliation will be expected? Will Balkanization occur? I'm not optimistic.
Gaudfridus:
1. Belated happy birthday to you!.
2. I don’t disagree that people in this country should learn to speak English. As I stated above, to become successful in this country, you have to speak English. And I also agree that were I to move to another country, I would learn their language. Let’s say I find out I’m moving to Germany in four months. I would spend time learning German, as well as local customs, real estate situations, etc. However, when I moved there, I would be far from fluent, and would greatly appreciate having forms available in my native language so that I could immediately get situated. Then, I could continue to learn the language. And that’s me, with resources and money at my disposal to start my language lessons early. Many immigrants don’t have that luxury.
3. I also know your frustration about certain neighborhoods that are basically foreign, as that describes large parts of Brooklyn (and Queens, Manhattan, etc), including neighborhoods adjacent to my own. That also has always described neighborhoods in large cities (Little Italy, Chinatown, etc), so I see that as part of a larger cycle. Also, how would making English the official language change ethnic neighborhoods? It wouldn’t require people to speak English on their own time, nor would it require signage to be in English. I guarantee you many of the people in the neighborhoods you’re speaking of speak English, they just chose to speak their native language when they’re at home, something that we can’t really regulate. I would advocate easier access to English language-classes,especially for adults, but I don’t think legislature would do anything.
As the old joke goes - Q: What do you call a person who can speak two languages? A: Bilingual. Q: What do you call a person who can speak more than two languages? A: Polyglot. Q: What do you call a person who can only speak one language? A: American.
So the author wants a declared, national language. Shocking that it's the language in which he speaks and writes himself. He also promotes a cultural identity based in common ideals and beliefs. Shocking that these are the ideals and beliefs he already holds. Pardon me for saying that I don't have a lot of respect for a guy who thinks that the country would be a lot better if everybody acted, spoke, and thought the same way he does, no matter how he couches the terms.
When someone can convince me of why, after 250 years of polyglot immigration, the U.S. suddenly needs to declare English as the national legal language, then I'll happily concede, but I really can't imagine a decent case to be made which doesn't rest on using "patriotism" to sponsor state-sanctioned racism.
A few more thoughts to make myself clear:
English IS the accepted language of the United States, and I have no problem with that. I think that as long as Americans are going to continue in our insistence to know only one language (and I'm, sadly, no real exception) then it helps to have almost everyone know what language that is. However, we don't need a law to explain that, much less mandate it. There's no single benefit that I can imagine to making English the national language. It wouldn't effect how people choose to speak in their own ghettos, and it wouldn't effect how comfortable Gaufridus feels when entering them. It only serves to disenfranchise people.
Also, despite GOP agendas and lies saying otherwise, people who actively immigrate to this country usually either know English or make it their top priority to learn it. Why? Because they've taken a great personal risk for themselves and the families by immigrating, and understand what they need to do in order to make it pay off. Also, they usually won't be as averse to speaking multiple languages as Americans are. When we talk about immigrants who only speak their native tongue, we're talking about the elderly relatives of the "active" immigrants, brought here so that their families might continue to care for them, and who form enclaves in their neighborhoods because they didn't want to move from the old country to begin with.
Secondly, I'm actually not a fan of bilingual education, but only because I've seen it in action. Higher education isn't bilingual, and ESL and other classes tend to divide the student body, and leave behind those who work in a bilingual setting. That's not good, obviously, those I don't imagine that all those supporting English as the national language truly care very much.
But I only say that because the act is specifically designed to disenfranchise immigrant, and particularly Hispanics, so it's not a far reach for me to suspect that the proponents don't give two shits about those who their victimizing in service of a political wedge issue and nothing else.
"I think that as long as Americans are going to continue in our insistence to know only one language (and I'm, sadly, no real exception) then it helps to have almost everyone know what language that is. However, we don't need a law to explain that, much less mandate it. There's no single benefit that I can imagine to making English the national language."
I think the real difficulty we're having here in putting forth rock-solid arguments and counter-arguments is that all our evidence is anecdotal. This goes for both sides of the issue.
What we need are facts & figures. Would there truly be no benefit to making English the official language? To know the answer, we'd need to know how much money we'd save - if any - if we were to stop printing documents, streets signs, etc. in other languages.
On the flip side, we'd need to know the numbers of residents (legal or illegal) in the U.S. who can neither speak English nor have a desire to do so. We'd need to know the economic and social impact their inability to understand English has on their local economy, government, and themselves.
Present-day Europe holds out a menacing example of what can happen when assimilation is not a priority. I think it's too optimistic to assume that the very fact we are Americans will prevent the same thing from happening here.
What's prevented it from happening so far is that - generally speaking - we have been very insistent on what it means to be an American and how people from abroad can become Americans.
As for Kelly's point somewhere above that there was never a time when America was a magical, united country. Well, of course not. The genius of federalism is that the states are allowed to experiment with different norms and laws, and cultural diversity is allowed to flourish.
But your implied conclusion, that diversity for its own sake is an unalloyed good, is faulty. There was certainly a time when too much diversity nearly destroyed the country: an entire region no longer wanted to be part of the nation, and moreover, thought having slaves was just fine.
Let me be clear: I'm not suggesting that parts of Texas, New Mexico, Florida, Arizona, and California are going to break off and form a splinter Hispanic nation. But I am saying that there does have to be some centripedal force to hold the country together, some basic agreement on who we are and what we do. Since our political traditions, history, and culture are bound up in the English experience, why not start there?
Post a Comment
<< Home