According to the Washington Times:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a proposal to make English the official language "racist" on the Senate floor [Thursday].
"This amendment is racist. I think it’s directed basically to people who speak Spanish," the Democrat said during the already tense debate over immigration reform.
Moments later, the Senate approved the measure on a 63-34 vote. Virtually all Republicans were joined by 11 Democrats to approve the largely symbolic amendment. Immediately following that vote, the Senate approved a second amendment, declaring on a 58-39 vote that English is the "common and unifying language."
It comes as little surprise that as the Senate head of a party specializing in identity politics, Senator Reid would attempt to play the race card to get his way in Congress, but isn’t this particular card getting rather worn?
There was a time–in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement and the numerous injustices that it served to correct–that the accusation of racism was a potent thing, and playing the race card could be a powerful instrument for altering the state of a discussion.
But the race card has been played so often–and so inaccurately–that it’s getting rather worn and easy to spot as part of a political bluff (to keep with the card playing metaphor for a moment).
False accusations of racism have been made so frequently (as, for example, by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney) that the potency of the racism charge is diluting. People no longer reflexivly assume that when the charge is made that it must be based on truth because those making the allegation have so over-used it that the situation has begun to resemble "The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf!’"
Particularly noteworthy is Sen. Reid’s accusation that a move to declare English the official language of the nation to be "racist" on the grounds that it is "directed basically to people who speak Spanish."
For a speaker of contemporary, 21st century English, this may leave one scratching one’s head: "What does race have to do with language? They’re completely separate. People of any race can speak any language that they choose to learn. This charge makes no sense."
It would have made a little more sense in the 18th century, when the term "race" still had more of its original meaning, which was to refer to a family, tribe, culture, or nation, such that one could speak of "the English race" or "the French race" or "the German race" or "the Spanish [meaning: ‘from Spain’] race," but that usage has been virtually lost from contemporary English.
As a result of the history of racism in the English-speaking world, the term "race" has changed to refer in normal speech to particular genetic backgrounds associated principally with skin color.
Given that change in meaning, language simply has nothing to do with race because people of every genetic background have the same basic language genes and can speak any language they choose to learn. Saying, "In this country the official language is English (or Spanish or Mandarin or Swahili or Arabic or Hebrew or Russian or what have you)" has nothing to do with a person’s genes and thus has nothing to do with race.
People of every race can speak every language, as illustrated by the fact that there are already millions of Americans of every race who are native English speakers.
Now, you’ll note something interesting about the 18th century use of the word "race": in examples like "the English race," "the French race," "the German race," and so on the distinguishing terms ("English," "French," "German") are also the names of languages.
There’s a very good reason for that: Language is one of the most fundamental aspects of culture–arguably the most fundamental aspect of culture–and so people who are members of a common nation and its culture tend to share a common language.
It is not easy to maintain a nation that does not share a common language. If you don’t believe that, look at Canada.
If people don’t share a common language then from an important perspective they simply aren’t part of the same culture because they can’t talk to each other and thus can’t participate to any significant degree in common cultural life.
Nations that don’t have a common language thus fail to have a common culture. What they have instead are different, sharply-defined cultures within them which are separated by linguistic barriers. This leads to friction between the language communities and to identity politics.
Sen. Reid’s refusal to endorse the idea of English as the common language in America thus would have the tendency to foster more identity politics and more friction between groups in American society.
Whether you want to call that "racism" or not, it’s something that we don’t need.
Let me see, French is the official language of France, English is the official language of England, German is the official language of Germany…
Thailand – Thai
Sweden – Swedish
What a bunch of crummy racists!
“Nations that don’t have a common language thus fail to have a common culture”.
I think it is naive to assume that everyone in the USA has a common culture, though we “all” speak English.
MUCH of our common culture can now be viewed as “western” culture or even “global” culture; media, sports, film, music, cable tv.
Yet, New England culture is not San Antonio culture. Minnesota culture is not Florida culture and that is not Southern culture. Mississipi culture is not Pacific Northwest culture and that is not Pennsylvania culture.
These include cuisine, social mores, heritage, attitudes, folk songs and stories among other things.
I am USAmerican but I can NOT relate to southern folk music. Speaking the same language does nothing for me in trying to understand, let alone appreciate, other cultures in these vastly wide United States (plural).
This helps to understand the whole stupid “red state / blue state” thing. Every traveler that I have met that has visited the USA from another country all commented on how huge the USA is and how vastly different each area is from the others.
All of the European Union could fit within the USA with ALL of its countries, languages and distinct cultures.
It was reported that millions went to London to protest Pres. Bush’s visit a few years ago. They mentioned that there are nowhere near that crowd sizes of protests against the Bush administration here in the USA. Well, I would protest if I had to drive five to eight hours to reach the capital, but who can afford to travel up to thirty to fifty hours each way?
I only bring this up to emphasize the tremendous distances in the USA, not just in miles but in regional cultural differences, not similarities.
People very familiar with a nation are quick to see its regional differences, but only time abroad let’s you see how very, very similar American culture is across the USA. Our regioanl differences are NOTHING compared to those in Russia, China, the Balkans, Brazil, and so on. I can’t describe it; you either see it or you don’t, but either way, it’s there, and part of that here is 200+ years of only-English.
I gotta agree with Ed.
I’m stationed in Japan, and even though I can’t speak the language (not there enough) it really *hits* you how honestly, truely different things are here.
I thought that Pensacola was different– it’s a city that’s very south-east, and I’m from Twisp, a tiny town in the north-west. Ditto for Biloxi and DC.
Even though Sasebo has a “small town” kind of feel, the basis is just slightly different.
“What does race have to do with language?”
Sheesh.
The illegal immigrants folks are debating are brown-skinned people who speak Spanish. That’s what the race connection is.
I live in the South, where people have got the art of referring to race without using race overtly down to a fine art. See, if I don’t want any black folks moving in I’m savvy enough to not say it like that. What I say is, I don’t want any of those housing projects in my neighborhood because it might bring in the “wrong people,” and everyone knows just what I mean without my having to say so.
Whar you from, boy? Don’t you know nuthin?
“The *illegal* immigrants folks are debating are brown-skinned people who speak Spanish. That’s what the race connection is.” I highlighted the key word. Come here legally, with the intention of becoming Americans(like my ancestors did) and we’ll welcome you. Be a gate-crasher, a law-breaker, and we won’t.
But, then, maybe being one who welcomes law-abiding people makes me a racist.
Ed and Sailorette,
I respectfully disagree with you. I lived in Europe for about three years and it was after I returned to the States that the differences were SO very apparent to me.
Ed,
“200+ years of English only”… I think that is by the majority in US; government, newspapers.
How long was German spoken in German communities, Polish spoken in Polish communities, Norweigan spoken in Norweigen communities, Irish spoken, Japanese spoken, Spanish spoken…..
it is only since modern communication that we “ALL” have spoken English and yet in every city of this nation there are over 100 different languages spoken at home as the first language.
Steve, that’s fine. The pendulum will swing back toward toward your seeing the similarites. In the meantime, at least you have a reason for your opinion. What a nice change of pace in the blogosphere. Regards, edp
i was waiting for someone to say it, what anon said. it makes little difference what you choose to speak at home, no law/policy is aimed at that. it makes a huge difference what speak in business and government, and that has been English. we don’t need to demonstrate that, do we?
“Let me see, French is the official language of France, English is the official language of England, German is the official language of Germany…Thailand – Thai
Sweden – Swedish”
Switzerland–Swiss; Oh, there is no “Swiss” language– make that German, French, Italian and Romansh. Seems they are able to conduct business, enforce laws and have an educated populace.
Are you sure we’re not just being inhospitable to all immigrants? You know it’s not just illegal immigrants who speak another language—it is also legal immigrants. So with this passage will it eventually become illegal for states to give written instructions for navigating voter registration, licensing for home repairs, etc., in the language of large local immigrant communities–Hmong and Somali along with Hispanic immigrants?
Ed is right. The point is not whether people shouldn’t speak whatever language they want to at home but how people interact in business, entertainment, politics etc… And unless you’ve been on some kind of medication you can’t fail to notice that English has always been used in the US. You might have a lot of people speaking their own language in their homes and neighborhoods but they still use English when they need to get things done and that is the case pretty much in every country. Except the countries that try to maintain several languages by publishing every official document in several languages (like Canada). But the fact is that a common language has always been present.
To pile on to what anon said, the Polish, German, Italian communities, etc., assimulated within a generation or two at the most.
My mother grew up with German spoken in the home. She can’t speak or understand it now. My wife’s parents were from Mexico. She can barely speak conversational Spanish.
In my own parish, Vietnamese-Americans outnumber the “Anglos”. Yes, we do have Veitnamese Masses, but more Veitnamese attend the English language Masses.
I think we are seeing a trend developing of cultures refusing to assimulate. This can’t be good. The Balkanization of America means that we may follow the fate of the Balkans.
I tend to agree with WRY and Patricia.
In THIS context, language has everything to do with ethnicity / skin color. I do not see how it is not racist.
This reminds me of the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937 which had NOTHING to do with how bad / unhealthy / evil or good marijuana use was. It was passed to control and stop, NOT the importing of marijuana, but the influx of Mexican immigrants in Arizona and New Mexico.
– Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.
– George Santayana
“So with this passage will it eventually become illegal for states to give written instructions… in the language of large local immigrant communities”
Not at all, though it may become illegal to REQUIRE that anyone to provide written translations or interpreters to non-English speakers.
It should also mean that competency in English will be a requirement for citizenship and high school graduation.
“it is only since modern communication that we ‘ALL’ have spoken English and yet in every city of this nation there are over 100 different languages spoken at home as the first language.”
Perhaps in anon’s experience. From my POV it’s only in the last generation or so that federal & state government agencies have been printing forms & documents in various languages on a grand scale (& at very great expense). I don’t care what lanugage folks speak at home. My Mom is the child of Portuguese immigrants. She used to converse in Portuguese all the time when I was a kid, especially the stuff she didn’t want us kids to understand (she’s forgotton most of it now, at 86 she’s the last of her siblings left). But if folks are going to do business, especially involving government agencies (including the DMV & the IRS) they should do so in English.
As a 2nd generation American, I just don’t see how that’s racist.
And don’t get me started on Harry Reid. I did not vote for him.
As my handle indicates, I come from an area that knows about using a language other than English.
Considering how long the Cajuns (and French) have been in Louisiana, it is only fairly recently that we’ve begun really losing our language. I am fairly young (mid-30s), and most people my age, and even a little older, do not speak French, not even in the house.
However, even today, at the “old folks” Mass on Saturday afternoons, it is not uncommon for people my grandparents age to talk to each other in French. I mean talk, have conversations, not just throw in a phrase or two. The nursing homes are filled with people who speak only French.
Despite how historically entrenched the French language has been in Louisiana, there was not this widespread sentiment of hostility toward English.
In fact, it was just the opposite. Today, almost all of the people my age, and most my parents’ age, do not speak French because speaking English was encouraged for a variety of reasons, including that English was the preferred language of our nation.
Sure, there is some regret that we’re losing our language. But there is no hostility. We understand that English is the lingua franca, if you will, of the US.
Luckily for me, God arranged for me to meet and marry a wonderful woman from Belgium. As a result, I was able to learn French, after all.
If people want to speak a second language in the home – as my wife, my daughter, and I do (French) – then there is nothing to stop them. But when we go to work and school, we need to speak English.
Tim J.,
It seems as if you are talking about two humongous issues here: immigragtion reform and education reform.
In California, approx. 20% of high school graduates are funcionally illiterate; regardless of ethnicity.
Across the United States, there are tons and tons of graduates every year that enter our society successfully but can not pass high school English.
Tim M.-
Competency in English (the ability to communicate) and the ability to pass a high school English course are two different things.
Nobody (regardless of immigration status, race, or whatever) should receive a high school diploma in the US without being able to communicate in English.
Let’s say that our hispanic population continues to grow by leaps and bounds in the next 50 years due to immigration and large hispanic families (not trying to generalize here) while the “English” population continues to stagnate due to smaller families.
So now in this hypothetical situation, let’s say we have 70 percent of native-Spanish speakers and 30 percent speaking English and other languages. At that point, how would we defend this proposed amendment to make the English the only language? Could a case be made that when an overwhelming majority of the people in a given nation do NOT speak the “offical” language that the “official” language could be changed?
I’m not sure the “we’ve been speaking it for 200 years” holds much water for me; surely there’s been an example in world history of an ethnic group expanding so much in a country that the “official” language changed.
I don’t claim to have much knowledge of the intricacies of this debate; I just feel that some of the arguments being made fall back on the tired ol’ “this is the way we’ve always done it” (which we all hate to hear in our respective parishes–if there’s a way to improve some practice, do it). I don’t feel that the racism accusation is accurate, but maybe there’s a bit of triumphalism involved.
I would just like to point out that, while the global science and business worlds are learning English as fast as they can, American’s are toying with downgrading it.
btw, some of the analogies used here are terrible. but i guess everyone feels that way about others’ examples.
Senator Reid is, it seems, using the old Second Edition source book, where “Hispanics” got a +5 score to the speaking Spanish skill.
Seriously, though, if I can be frank; this whole debate seems imbecilic to me. In order to preserve law and order in a society, all people must have a language in common. Since the United States of America were originally English colonies, they now have English as their common language.
Any immigrant who comes to America and wants to live here for good should learn English, because there is no way that these immigrants can function as productive members of society, interacting with the native population and whatnot. It is arrogant in the extreme for these immigrant to assume that we all have to cater to their language when we, the native population, already have a common language of our own.
The same is true for an American who wants to move to Mexico. If you want to emigrate to Mexico, then learn Spanish! What right does an American have to go to another man’s land and then demand that the denizens of that land all learn to speak his tongue? Let him speak English at home if he wishes; but to be a productive member of Mexican society, he must learn to speak the native tongue.
Mr. Akin is right; language is one of the defining marks of a culture. Everyone generally wants to preserve his own culture, the culture of his father and his father’s father. Mexicans have a right to keep their country speaking Spanish, and Americans have a right to keep their country speaking English, and the only way that these situation can change is if the native populations abandon their own tongue in favour of another.
All of that being said, I would say that the only people who are “racist” in this debate are those who still think that one’s genetic ancestry somehow determines who and what he is. That is, I think that people who say things like: “of course this debate is about race; the people speaking Spanish are of a different complexion!” are merely serving to divide people into opposing, hostile categories. We should be focused to strengthen national unity, on what unites us, and not what divides us; especially when what divides us is something as frivolous as having a few shades more pigment in our skin, or having our ancestors come from different parts of Western Europe.
In the end, I would much rather see the States themselves decide which languages they wish to have in common, simply because I don’t like the idea of the Federal Government bearing down on people any more then they already are. That being said, any state law of that variety would likely be struck down by our Out of Control Judiciary™, I am all in favour of said amendment.
Viva la Ingles!
Two thoughts…
One. The other side of Randolph’s comments is what is known as “the ugly American”. One of the things that has caused me to be embarrased to be an American.
Most Americans, even though they are guests and tourists in a foreign country, that I have met or seen overseas expect and demand that the “native people” should speak English to accomodate them, the Americans. Isn’t this racist? nationalistic? or just ignorant?
Two. What you say, Praying Twice, is not so hypothetical. It is exaclty what is happening across Europe. Just do the math. In fifty years, it is possible that most European countries will have a majority of it’s electorate that are Muslim. They could just pass laws making themselves Muslim countries.
If there are 70% Spanish speaking here in USA, why wouldn’t they just elect themselves and pass laws making Spanish the national language.
It is simple mathematics involving immigration /emmigration numbers and birth / death rates.
For reference, see “THE CUBE AND THE CATHEDRAL: Europe, America and Politics Without God” by George Weigel.
Thanks Mr. Peters,
some of the analogies used here are terrible
That implies that some of the analogies are good. Now to see which mine falls into. 🙂
“It is not easy to maintain a nation that does not share a common language. If you don’t believe that, look at Canada.”
Yeah, look at Canada. Falling apart. So too Great Britain, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands. Falling apart before our very eyes, I tell you!
“Yeah, look at Canada. Falling apart.” Correct, TM. The secessionist movement in French-speaking Quebec is very strong. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Quebec someday break away from Canada. Of course, the other countries you mention have one official language.
TM has a good point about Belgium, which does NOT have just one official language. As I noted in my previous post, my wife is Belgian, and, as I have often visited there, I can attest that offical documents appear in several languages.
For an interesting history of Belgium, including many of the cultural-language problems, I suggest reading Paul Belien’s A Throne in Brussels.
hi brian: careful, it might only imply that some are “not terrible” but whether they are good, well….
part of that here is 200+ years of only-English.
Well, let’s get our history straight – not all of the United States as presently existing have had English only for the last 200+ years. In fact, many states have not even been part of the US for 200 years.
I don’t have a prob with an official language, and English seems the front-runner (Rome had Latin as official, although many used Greek as the common language as well as others). As for “doing business” in English, well, there is no way to control how business is done – businesses will follow where the consumer is. If my market speaks 50% Spanish and I only do business in English, I am a fool. And I will soon be out of business as my competitors “pateyan mi culo”.
Glommed this from PowerLine but it sums up my observations:
This is not an “immigration” issue. “Immigration” is when you go into a U.S. government office and there’s 100 people filling in paperwork to live in America, and there are a couple of Slovaks, couple of Bangladeshis, couple of New Zealanders, couple of Botswanans, couple of this, couple of that. Assimilation is not in doubt because, if you’re a lonely Slovak in Des Moines, it’s extremely difficult to stay unassimilated.
This is not an “illegal immigration” issue. That’s when one of the Slovaks or Botswanans gets tired of waiting in line for 12 years and comes in anyway, and lives and works here and doesn’t pay any taxes, so the money he earns gets sluiced around the neighborhood supermarket and gas station and topless bar and the rest of the local economy, instead of being given to Trent and Arlen and Co. to toss into the great sucking maw of the federal budget.
But a “worker class” drawn overwhelmingly from a neighboring jurisdiction with another language and ancient claims on your territory and whose people now send so much money back home in the form of “remittances” that it’s Mexico’s largest source of foreign income (bigger than oil or tourism) is not “immigration” at all, but a vast experiment in societal transformation. Indeed, given the international track record of bilingual societies and neighboring jurisdictions with territorial claims, it’s not much of an experiment so much as a safe bet on political instability.
The illegal immigrants folks are debating are brown-skinned people who speak Spanish.
And the racism is the claim that these Spanish-speaking people, unlike other immigrants, can’t learn English.
This amendment is fighting that.
“The secessionist movement in French-speaking Quebec is very strong.”
Widely believed, but not actually true.
“Of course, the other countries you mention have one official language.”
Britain has four. Belgium has three. The Netherlands has two. Spain has four.
I can’t speak for the other countries but it’s also worth noting that UK government publications are, in addition to the four official languages, available in a number of others, including Chinese (both forms), Hindi, Gujerati, French, Spanish, etc. etc.
I have to jump in here. One of my high school teachers was a wonderful Cuban woman who went to governor’s conferences and such in order to SUPPORT English as the official language of the U.S. This was in the ’70s and ’80s. I know that some other Hispanics disliked her for her views, and I did not really understand her passion.
Later, I taught ESL to adults for several years while earning my secondary school teaching certificate. An eye-opener was teaching a young Mexican-American couple. The wife was born and raised in Mexico; her English was extremely good to begin with, but she needed help in hearing vowels (e.g. to distinguish between “pin”, “pan” and “pen” was very difficult for her). The husband, however, was having trouble speaking English, although he understood it well. He was actually American, having been born in the U.S. and living many years here. However, he was put into a bilingual education program in grade school that actually discouraged him from going into the English-speaking classroom. He spoke Spanish at school, at home, and in the neighbourhood. Ironically, he finally learned to speak English with proficiency in Mexico. As an adult, he felt cheated.
One of the things that they were VERY proud of was that both their daughters were learning English fluently. The elder daughter struggled at first, but by the end of the year she planned to enroll in a so-called “American school” when they returned to Mexico. They emphasized that English was the key to being able to work in Asia and Europe, since that is the common language of business.
And that is why I think that Mr. Reid misses the point. We may pretend all we like, but English is the language of major commerce and culture in the U.S. Learning it well improves one’s opportunities.
“‘The seccessionist movement in French-speaking Quebec is very strong.’ Widely believed, but not actually true.” No source given.
I notice you ignore the rest of the post. Telling.
As the one who claims that Canada is on the verge of splitting up, the onus is on you to provide evidence, not me.
Please get this message to Sen Reid ” You are an idiot and the beswt thing you could do for America is resign or just plain quit”
Please get this message to Sen Reid ” You are an idiot and the beswt thing you could do for America is resign or just plain quit”