It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The English Only Movement
Among special-interest lobbies, the English Only movement stands out. It's easy to understand the origins of the Tobacco Institute or the Peanut Advisory Council or the Valve Manufacturers Association. But how does a language acquire a multimillion-dollar advocacy group? Cui bono? Who seeks to benefit by pushing the idea of English as the official language? Certainly not the National Council of Teachers of English or the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages or the Linguistic Society of America – these organizations strongly oppose English Only measures.
U.S. English and English First, two national groups spearheading this legislation, started small in the mid-1980s. Drawing support mainly from direct-mail contributions, they have grown steadily in budgets, staffs, and influence. H.R. 123, the leading "Language of Government" bill in the 104th Congress, boasted nearly 200 cosponsors. Public support has exceeded 85 percent in some opinion polls. English Only is no longer a fringe movement.
Who are these people and what do they want?
1. Citizens who want to preserve our common language and avoid ethnic strife
2. Bigots seeking to roll back civil rights advances for language-minority groups
3. Conservatives hoping to impose a sense of national unity and civic responsibility
4. Liberals who fear that bilingual education and bilingual voting discourage assimilation
5. Nativists trying to fan animosity toward immigrants and build support for tighter quotas
6. Euro-ethnics who resent "unfair advantages" enjoyed by Hispanics and Asians today
7. Politicians attempting to exploit a national mood of isolationism and xenophobia
8. Racists who equate multiculturalism and ethnic separatism
9. Americans who feel threatened by diversity, among other unsetting changes
10. All of the above.
A good case could be made for "all of the above." You be the judge.
Debunking English-only Ideology
The English-only ideology is actually in contradiction with what it truly means to be an American. Proponents of language restrictions as public policy demonstrate a lack of faith in the power of American democratic ideals of social justice and equality to unite us in a common purpose, despite our differences. Individual freedoms and the guarantee of rights under our Constitution transcend our cultural and linguistic origins and practices.
The English Language Amendment
In many states, the English Language Amendment has been added to the state constitution. The reasoning from state to state differs; therefore, the results also vary. In Arizona, the law was adopted as a symbol, much like the state bird. Bilingual education is still present in the classroom and other languages are permitted. However, in California, it was adopted as a supreme law. Signs in other languages have been removed, and bilingual education is a thing of the past. Workers are not permitted to speak their own language in the work place, and many have been dismissed for doing so. "One consequence is the increase reprimands or firings of Spanish speakers by employers who don't allow them to speak anything but English on the job" (Daniels 54). Reports continue to surface about the workers who are being fired for using a language other than English on the job (Baron 3). The laws are strict about the use of English, and have caused an increased hostility among language minorities. As a result, there is more discrimination in the work place and in schools. The amendment has resulted in the minorities' loss of freedom of speech.
The question still remains, why should English be made the official language? If it is merely symbolic and will not have any impact on the rights of Americans, then it is frivolous. If it restricts the rights of a portion of Americans, then it is dangerous. The passage of the English Language Amendment would lead to the loss of the rights of language minorities. "The number of rights language minorities enjoy will decrease and, as a consequence, their quality of life will suffer" (Daniels 56). Not only will the language minority suffer, but so will the rest of the general population. "Amending the Constitution would change our society's fundamental conception of what is fair in education, the workplace, the courts, and the voting booths" (Daniels 57). It will lead to the end of the rights now enjoyed by Americans. Simply put, "[d]enying rights to speakers of other languages allows for a slow but inevitable encroachment upon the right of us all" (Daniels 58).
Who would it make it easier on? You? A segment of the population who doesn't and is unwilling to learn another language?
HISTORY OF LANGUAGE LEGISLATION
In the first American colonies more than twenty languages were spoken in daily life, including Dutch, French, German, and numerous Native American languages. Even the Articles of Confederation were printed in English and German.
Languages other than English have always been a part of an American history and culture; however, the debate over establishing a national language also dates back to the country’s beginnings. In 1780, John Adams proposed to the Continental Congress that an official academy should be created to “purify, develop, and dictate usage of English.” His proposal was rejected as undemocratic and as a threat to individual liberty.
The dominance of English was established only at the time of the first U.S. Census in 1790. Estimates of the population’s ethnic origins indicated language diversity even at that time, when roughly half of the population was of English origin; nearly 19 percent was of African origin; 12 percent was Scottish or Scottish-Irish and Irish accounted for about 3 percent of the total. People of Dutch, French, and Spanish origin represented an aggregate 14 percent. The first U.S. Census largely ignored Native Americans. So Americans were tolerant of linguistic diversity up until the late 1800s, when an influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans, as well as Asians prompted the enactment of restrictive language laws.
in California, it was adopted as a supreme law. Signs in other languages have been removed, and bilingual education is a thing of the past. Workers are not permitted to speak their own language in the work place, and many have been dismissed for doing so
Originally posted by ceci2006
Who would it make it easier on? You? A segment of the population who doesn't and is unwilling to learn another language?
Originally quoted by 25cents
um, the MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY, as opposed to a small segment of the population who refuses to leanr english. it's pretty hard to refrain from name-calling when there's someone who's too stubborn to accept that someone else might just be right about something when the amount of evidence against them is insurmountable.
Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
There's a difference between "English-Only" and having English as the official language of the US. I can't back an English-Only agenda, but I definitely feel that there should be an official language.
That doesn't mean it's mandatory to learn for immigrants. But I do think it should be taught in our schools. Any child growing up in the US school district should learn English. To be fair to everyone. If certain schools teach in French (let's say) then if an English-speaking child moves into that district, it's not right to make that kid learn French to go to that school.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Language discrimination means treating someone differently solely because of his or her native language or other characteristics of speech.
By eliminating an ethnicity's language or speech, one effectively sends a silent message that the persons residing in a particular group do not matter. It is eliminating their history. It is eliminating their customs. It is eliminating their personal rights of expression. It is also negating their very humanity and right to exist. By not allowing others to free express themselves in their own language, they are impelled to forget their mother tongue as well as their family and cultural history. It is against the American way.