Seems those at the top in run-down Ft. Smith think they've got a really good idea - make English the city's one-and-only official language. Here's a bit of the article that sheds some light on the reasoning behind it...or does it?
Maddox said after Tuesday’s study session the idea for the ordinance arose from a discussion the directors had earlier this month on immigration.
He’s heard of cities and communities being overburdened by providing city documents in more than one language, he said.
Hmmmmm...we'd like to challenge Mr. Maddox or any of his colleagues to produce the proff there. Which communities? Which cities? Can we hear the details behind this, or are you just making all this up (which is what it sounds like to us.)
Like 'em or not, here's what the NEA had to tell Congress about crap like this...
English Only is government-sanctioned bigotry," asserts the NEA. "Whether or not its proponents are bigots themselves, English Only gives comfort to anti-immigrant forces. These forces cloak English Only in the rhetoric of national unity, but a federal law would, in fact, question the patriotism and make outsiders of those still learning English." That puts schools in a difficult situation -- given that they teach the values of tolerance and respect.
Another writer, James Crawford asks why people try to get ordinances like thise passed. He has some suggestions which may fit here...just who are the people who want "english only" rules passed?
* Bigots seeking to roll back civil rights advances for language-minority groups
* Conservatives hoping to impose a sense of national unity and civic responsibility
* Liberals who fear that bilingual education and bilingual voting discourage assimilation
* Nativists trying to fan animosity toward immigrants and build support for tighter quotas
* Euro-ethnics who resent "unfair advantages" enjoyed by Hispanics and Asians today
* Politicians attempting to exploit a national mood of isolationism and xenophobia
* Racists who equate multiculturalism and ethnic separatism
* Americans who feel threatened by diversity, among other unsetting changes
Which would you be, Mr. Maddox?
And yet another writer has a look at how effective such measures could be...or how much it migh actually cost us.
Of course, a mainstream idea is not necessarily a rational one, free of prejudice and paranoia. The campaign to ‘officialize’ English in the United States rests on the absurd claim that the most successful and dominant world language in history is under siege in its strongest bastion. Proponents argue that:
English has always been our ‘social glue,’ our most important ‘common bond,’ which has allowed Americans of diverse back-grounds to understand each other and overcome differences (a notion seductive to liberals).
Today’s immigrants refuse to learn English, unlike the good old immigrants of yesteryear (flattery for Euro-ethnics), and are discouraged from doing so by government-sponsored bilingual programs.
Languages are best learned in a situation that forces one to do so – where there’s no escape from brutal necessity – unlike the situation in a bilingual classroom (reflexive appeal for ‘social issue’ conservatives).
Ethnic leaders are promoting bilingualism for selfish ends: to provide jobs for their constituents and keep them dependent by discouraging them from learning English (courting the Hispanophobes).
Language diversity inevitably leads to language conflict, ethnic hostility, and political separatism à la Québec (playing to paranoia of all stripes).
Virtually no evidence has been produced on behalf of any of these propositions,
all of which are demonstrably false. But in this strange debate, factual support has
generally proved unnecessary for English-only proponents to advance their cause.
The facts are that, except in isolated locales, immigrants to the United States have
typically lost their native languages by the third generation. Historically they have
shown an almost gravitational attraction toward English, and there are no signs that this
proclivity has changed. To the contrary, recent demographic data analyzed by Veltman
(1983, 1988) indicate that rates of anglicization – shift to English as the usual
language – are steadily increasing. They now approach or surpass a two-generation pattern
among all immigrant groups, including Spanish-speakers, who are most often stigmatized as
resistant to English.
The failure of the English-only approach to deliver a new generation of flawless English speaking students was no surprise. A decade earlier, a federal study to determine whether bi-lingual education helped or hindered the attainment of English proficiency concluded that bi-lingual education was not the losing proposition that English only advocates claimed. It found that well-funded and implemented programs enabled limited English speaking students to catch up to their English fluent students at a faster rate. It also found that it took students nearly five years to fully master English, and not the one year that English-only backers claimed an immersion program would take.
No comments:
Post a Comment