Bilingualism in America?
I can't really think of a flashy
intro that will grab your attention. I could dazzle you with
some outrage statistics about how the world will becoming to an end if my problem is not solved
right away. I could write a really funny story about how this problem relates to all of us, to show
how my problem is of dire importance. Or I could find some really good quote that would take
up one-third of the page which would leave me with only six and two-thirds of a paper left to
write. This is what I chose.
". . . the man who becomes completely
Americanized. . . and who talks United States instead of
the dialect of the country which he has of his own free will abandoned is not only doing his plain
duty by his adopted land, but is also rendering himself a service of immeasurable value. . . A man
who speaks only German or Swedish may nevertheless be a most useful American citizen; but it is
impossible for him to derive the full benefit he should from American citizenship."
Theodore Roosevelt
April 14, 1888
You may be asking yourself "Why should I care
about a hundred year old quote about
language and communication in America?" Well, today in the United States the problem of
communication and language has risen again. Should America become bilingual or stay as it is
today, without an official language? I know some of you are now looking for the nearest exit to
get off of this site, but wait. This topic is of interest to you. The way you communicate in the
future will depend on the government's stance. You need to be concerned about this issue
because soon your tax dollars will be going to the solution. You should care about this problem
because it will affect every aspect of how we as a country communicate, right down to what
language will be spoken in your home.
OK, now that you know you have
to read this article you probably are wondering if I am
ever going to get to the actual problem. Yep. Here it is. Today, in America there is a
communication problem. It is estimated that the Spanish language population will reach 16.59
million in 2001 (Veltman 101). How is and how will America handle the communication
problems that are or will arise? Right now, America is only doing a lot of bickering and nit
picking, but we will talk about this later. There are two main movements to this issue, The
English Only and The English Plus. English Only (EO) is a movement that is dedicated to the
preservation of the English language as the one and only language for the United States. In 1985
EO proposed an amendment that stated the following:
1. That English shall be the official language of the
United States
2. That "appropriate legislation" may be passed by
Congress to enforce this article.
3. That no law shall be passed or policy enforced that
requires the use of any
language in the U.S. other than English.
4. That the article shall not prohibit any law or policy
that requires a language other
than English to be used "for the purpose of
making students who use a
language other than English proficient in
English (Heath 1)"
Why does the EO believe that English should be
the official language? According to Sen.
Richard Shelby (R-AL), "According to 1990 U.S. Census data, there are more than 300
languages spoken in the United States by people whose primary language is a language other than
English. While diversity is truly an asset, the government is tasked with ensuring that non-English
speakers participate in our government. By discouraging assimilation through accommodation,
the Federal government is doing a disservice not only to those who deserve the same
opportunities as everyone else, but to society as a whole (Costco).
On the other side of this issue is the
English Plus Movement (EP). The English Plus
Movement is a movement that is dedicated to the preservation of culture and the languages that
make up that culture. According to EP, America is cultural melting pot that strives on diversity.
If the United States were to become a monolingual society it would be creating a xenophobic, fear
of hatred of immigrants, country. The EP uses the idea of pluralism, the belief that many cultures
can live in harmony, and in the process lend flavor and influence (Harlan 51).
What are these two sides proposing we do to
solve the communication problem? The EO
tried to pass the EO amendment, but did not succeed. However, the EO has succeed in passing
legislation in the separate states, Virginia, California, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia,
Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Arizona, South Carolina, Colorado,
Florida, and Alabama have all passed pro-English resolutions or laws (Harlan 61-64). Both the
EO and the EP have heightened public awareness. In papers through out the nation there are
constant articles on both sides of the issue. But what are these two sides actually doing to solve
the issue? Nothing.
The two sides have created public hysteria and
mass confusion. The movements are
feeding off of stereotypes, misconceptions, and fears of the general public. The average American
can relate to a story of how upon going into a McDonald's or any other fast food restaurant they
saw the whole crew of workers talking in Spanish. The EO would turn around and say, "See we
can't even communicate at a fast food restaurant, Spanish is taking over, if we don't pass laws
soon, we won't even be able to speak English in our homes." The EP would respond by saying,
"No, the Spanish speakers are adding influence to your communities. Look at all the heritage this
language is bringing with it. If you pass your laws you will alienate millions of people, and will be
adding to the racism that thrives in this country." The two sides could go at it like this for years,
and never really solve the problem. What are the solutions?
(Interesting how I could have written a paper
on Bilingualism using only McDonald's.
Some people say that McDonald's already is bilingual, especially in the southern states where they
have menus in both English and Spanish. For opposition to this stance there would be those in
the northern states that say McDonald's is not bilingual. For solutions to the McDonald's
communication problem I could have told you how all employees who only speak Spanish should
be fired. Or I could have told you about bilingual employees and how they are the best solution.
OK enough rambling back to the problem that effects all of Americans and not the billions and
billions who eat ate McDonald's.)
America could become bilingual. Why not follow
in the foot steps of our neighbor to the
north, Canada? Time for a short history lesson, in 1763, Canada was taken over by the English
after being in French rule. England and France tried to work out things peacefully. English for
the most part was adopted as the majority language, except in Quebec. In 1867, Canada officially
became a bilingual country. The French language, however, was not greeted with favor. French
speakers were greeted with hostility and many areas passed anti-French laws. In 1960's after
years of fighting a new policy was set up, after Quebec threatened to succeed. Today, battling
still occurs, nine years ago Quebec banned outside English signs (Harlan 32). Would this happen
in America? In a country fueled with diversity, where racism still thrives, yes, yes, it would.
And do not think that it is only Canada with problems with their bilingual policies. Paraguay has a
bilingual language system that is marveled through out the world, but it's system has it flaws.
Paraguay has problems with it's educational programs (28).
This isn't the only reason why the United
States should not be bilingual. According to the
EP a bilingual society would be beneficial. The United states has always been a multilingual
nation. Remember, that the EP, uses the idea of pluralism and it's belief that many cultures can
live in harmony, while in the process lend flavor and influence (Harlan 51). Pluralism rejects the
idea that America is a melting pot; immigrants do not need to assimilate in order for a peaceful
society to exist (51). On the contrary, according to J. R. Edwards (as told by Suzanne Romaine),
"it is too easy to assume that cultural pluralism is unreservedly a good thing. He (Edwards)
argues that some of the premises on which this view is based rely on static and simplistic
conceptions of culture, society, and ethnicity. Advocates of this position often romanticize the
past and see the preservation of ethnicity as essential to returning to a simpler era. . .(Romaine
253)."
Another possible solution would be for America
to become a monolingual, English
society. If America is a country run by true democracy this would be the choice that it would
make. Since the introduction of the EO, laws have passed to create an English speaking society in
sixteen states (as mentioned above) (ACLU 2). In Alabama, an EO constitutional amendment
was passed with 89.6 percent of the vote (Harlan 64). These are people in the U.S taking a stand,
saying "We want only English." In an informal poll by Glamour magazine in March 91 percent of
the respondents replied yes to the question, "Do you think English should be declared the official
language of the United States?" (Glamour 201). (OK. I admit that Glamour readers and
respondents might not make up the majority of the United States, but nonetheless they do have a
voice. I mean if they had time to fill out and return a survey by Glamour, they obviously have
time to vote an election.) In another survey of wheither America should become English Only,
taken over the internet, 97 percent of those polled said that they felt the United States should
(Costco). (This too is a non-representative poll because it was taken by those who are on the
internet and was not accessible to all.) But is America becoming a monolingual country the best
solution? No.
According to the ACLU, versions of the proposed
English Language Amendment would
void state and federal laws that provide services in languages other than English (ACLU 2).
Services that would be affected range from: health, education, driver's licensing exams, to AIDS
prevention education (2). These laws would affect mainly the Latinos and Asians, the most recent
immigrants. In the past when the United States has been confronted with an onslaught of
immigrants some Americans have tried to create a monolingual society. (Like we have now.)
When a mass immigration of Italians and Eastern Europeans occurred in the early 1900's the
United States passed English literacy requirements(3). In 1919 during World War I, when
anti-German sentiments were heightened, Nebraska passed laws prohibiting the use of any other
language than English though the eighth grade (3). The language problem was even present in
1780. John Adams was one of the first to propose a solution to the communication problem.
Adams proposed an official academy be created to "purify, develop, and dictate usage of English
(1)." His proposal was rejected as undemocratic and a threat to individual liberty (1).
I know you are probably tired of me giving you
the run down. You want to know what
my real solution is to this problem. Drum roll please. . America should do nothing and let the
children of tomorrow solve this problem. I know you are disappointed, but before you look for
the nearest exit, give me a chance to explain my solution. In the past America has looked for a
solution to this problem, but only ended up creating a bigger mess for the future. In the 1900's
New York amended it's constitution to disfranchise over one million Yiddish-speaking citizens
(3). Look where that got us. (The Yiddish language is now considered a dead language.) During
the same time period, the government was trying to "Americanize" the Native Americans. The
government forced American Indian children to attend English-language boarding schools, a
direct violation of their rights (3). The United States while trying to find a quick solution to a
problem that will probably plague us for the rest of history, has in turn violated the vast majority
of American"s rights. What if we pass laws creating a monolingual society, and in 50 years we
look and say, "Boy that was stupid?" We have passed a lot of policies that alienate groups of
citizens, the Yiddish, German, Italians, Eastern Europeans, and Native Americans, just to name a
few. What if we now alienate the Latinos?
When I started to write this paper I had
planned to write about how language education
programs would be the best solution to this problem. I have since decided that this solution is too
idealistic. Imagine a country where there would be options. Everyone would be able to take
classes in the English language. These classes would be free, taught by college graduates. (Who
would have their loans reduced in the process.) The classes would be available in all states and as
many towns as possible. I felt that no cost would be to great to unite the country with one
common language. I have since woken up to the real world, maybe it has something to do with
the fact that I had to pay income taxes while writing this paper. I still feel that English
educational programs are needed. Over 40,000 are on the waiting list for adult English classes in
Los Angeles (4). This is a solution that the Latinos want. The new immigrants to the United
States are trying to "Americanize". According to the ACLU, over 95 percent of first generation
Mexican Americans are English proficient, and mare than 50 percent of second generation
Mexican Americans are unable to speak their native language (4). Educational programs are an
option, all be it a far fetched option, but an option nonetheless.
I have a feeling that if the trend of
immigrants learning English quickly continues, the
United States' language problem will work itself out. In the past this is how the language
problems have been worked out. The Yiddish, although not given a choice, learned English. End
of problem. The Native Americans, although forced, learned English. End of problem. The
Germans, forced again, learned English. End of problem. Latinos, allowed to keep their heritage
and language, totally not influenced by government, learn English. Then end of problem.
Let's recap what you have learned. There
is a communication in the United States that is
being fueled by stereotypes and racism. There are two sides to the issue, EO and EP. Neither
side is right. The United States should not become bilingual because bilingualism has not worked
for other countries and bilingualism will not, unlike the EP believes, be a harmonious place. The
United States should not become monolingual because the government would be alienating a lot
of citizens in the process and a monolingual country has not succeeded in the past. The United
States should let the tide of immigrants be, stay out of the problem, and things will be ok.
Bibliography
About the Author
Back to The Full Cup
Send comments to:
flashamy@imap3.asu.edu