It Is Not Liberalism It Is Lunacy

 

The highest ranking Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as "racist."

One of my readers who goes by the nom de guerre of "Slowtrain" responds with a comment, simply begging for a post of its own:

"The notion that English language should not be the official and national language of the United States of America is unbelievable silly, yet completely insane. It is not liberalism, it is lunacy. The leadership of the Democratic Party is either unbelievably gullible or is exhibiting clear symptoms of “excessive group allegiance” where sentiments have completely overtaken reason.

As one with first hand experience with the deleterious effects of many official languages on democracy and unity of purpose within a nation, I must recommend that they take a trip to Nigeria, Cameroon, Turkey, Afghanistan or even Canada or at least try to study a little about all the countries of this world where many official languages undermine democracy and unity.

In the book Tribalizing America, the author wrote,

“Yet there is nothing to suggest that anything—not a nation of many years of democratic existence such as America, not even an idea or principle such as democracy—is beyond erosion and destruction. To that end, no one should be under any illusion as to take for granted the threats posed by the issues of many competing common national languages. After all, just a few years ago, Canada was faced with a crisis that threatened her existence (and almost split her in two). The primary cause of that crisis was perhaps her dual national languages (and the attendant problems thereof), which inevitably created similar barriers as we have seen in less developed and less democratic countries.

In fact, in the minds of many Canadians and people outside Canada, there is a tacit assumption that there are two distinct national entities within Canada: the “English Canada” and the “French Canada.” Perhaps some day America will have a similar situation, where there will be a tacit assumption that two national entities (for example, the “English America” and the “Spanish America”) exist within the United States of America.

Many other countries faced with similar situations have not been as successful as Canada in dealing with and resolving the situation, at least so far. Countries such as Afghanistan, Indonesia, Burma, Bosnia, Turkey, Macedonia, Kosovo, Iraq, and most countries in Africa are all dogged by the problems engendered by multiple and competing languages, among other problems. In fact, the absence of a common language is the most prevalent way to create and preserve division, thereby perpetuating cultural polarization, which in turn leads to fragmentation and disunity in a nation.”

 

The author cited an excerpt from a news series by the San Diego Union Tribune, published on August 22, 1999, which noted that California alone is now home to recent immigrants from nearly 200 nations. This number is most likely higher for the United States as a whole. Why aren’t the democrats calling for their ancestral languages to also become official languages of the United States? I tell you why; it is because in the emerging perverted paradigm of democracy in America – the political numbers game, where politicians would go where they perceive there is money or votes and would sacrifice the essence of their country in the process. The author of Tribalizing America identified the political numbers game and politics of ethnicity that is at play in America as “enemies within”.

Language is perhaps the primary element of a society and the primary method of communication among people in the society. It is a very powerful tool that can unite or divide to the same degree. The starting point or foundation for social integration is perhaps a common language. Without it, the process would be like making bread, bricks, or concrete with little or no water. In a sense, language is equivalent to the arteries and veins (perhaps, in another sense, like the blood) in the human body, through which the essential elements are distributed, the essence sustained, and the body maintained.

Building a society on multiple languages, indeed any form of social engineering that does not emphasize a single common language in a particular society, is imprudent. The former is a recipe for disaster; the latter is an exercise in futility. Language is the most basic and common way to exclude or alienate people (or to be excluded or alienated). It is also the most basic and common way to include and integrate people. A common language establishes the first element of trust between people; it is the first sign of acceptance amongst people. Language is indeed the true passport to any country or society.

The author who was not by any means suggesting that people should not speak their secondary languages where and when it is appropriate, notes that language can as easily arouse suspicion or misperception when it is not spoken or understood by all, just as it arouses comradeship when spoken or understood by all. Having or promoting multiple common or official languages in a society is counterproductive. Not only is it very limiting and wasteful, it is redundant and divisive. It is like running in different directions at the same time. It encourages or creates unnecessary differences among people and undermines social integration and unity in diversity. The United States spends $300 million every year in bilingual education, in spite of clear evidence that children learn better when thought in English.

Whether we like it or not, the English language is more or less a transactional language and has become the official language of global commerce, science, technology and art. All over the world, people are recognizing this fact and seeking education in the English language. Studies also show that the demand for American-style education and television programming is increasing rapidly around the world. This is in part due to the realization that the English language is fast becoming the world’s language of choice by necessity. Hence, it is puzzling that America, which is largely responsible for this emerging global consciousness, by virtue of her economic dominance, seems to fail to see what the rest of the world ironically sees in her.

It must be recognized that the preexisting condition of lack of a common language undermines democracy in many countries of the world. Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the effort to build a united Europe (in the likeness of the United States of America) is lack of a common language. It must also be recognized that the preexisting condition of a common language in America at her birth (at least among the founders) or the willingness to embrace it as the common language was critical in successfully establishing the nation and the principles upon which she was founded. It remained that way, as immigrants came from all over the world, where English was not spoken: Sweden, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Denmark, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, etc., and likewise all became fully integrated into the American society by virtue of the common language - English, until recently when unprincipled politicians for the sake of political and personal gains, and capitalist raiders pushing rabid capitalism for personal gains pushed the adoption of Spanish as a second language in a deal of quid pro quo for votes and profits. Now, a problem exists where there ought not and adds to the distractions from legitimate issues that beg for the nation’s attention."

Don't miss reading Michael Combs post on the Tower of Democratic babble and the dissent to the above post written by Knight Errant.

Comments

[Jerome Lapointe]

"...or at least try to study a little about all the countries of this world where many official languages undermine democracy and unity."

Wow... two official languages undermines democracy in Canada?
Lets go back to when it was just french then. ;P

Canada has 2 official languages because it reflects it's reality... not cause they thought it'd be nice.

What's your reality? You're failing to integrate this mass of new people that you call illegal immigration... but it looks more like population displacement than immegration now...

Europe is ensuring it's survival by making sure it enriches all it's members and neighbours... You live the high life while on the other side of... the place where one might have put a fence... people a scrapping the bottom of the barrel...

Wether you like it or not your reality has changed. They're not just immigrants now. If your politics don't start matching the people's reality then that is what undermines the will of the people.

Note that in Canada official languages are more of a Province based thing... most unilangual english, one unilangual french, one blingual. On the federal level it's bilingual but has little effect on your everyday life. A positive side-effect of bilinguism is that it acts as an (imperfect) filter for education level of your political players as the unilangual representative never get very far. A unilingual Prime Minister is almost unthinkable.

[gringoman]

Probligo: Rich raises a good point.

If English is the "official language" to the extent that no other is permissable in a Court for example, what rights would a person have whose only means of communication was signing?

Why should Spanish or Cree be regarded any differently?

==============================================================

gringo: What rights? It would appear that he'd have the rights of any other citizen. In the event that he can't understand the language of his (presumably) own country....

(1) one wonders how he got to be a citizen in the first place, and yet,

(2) he nevertheless,like any citizen, is entitled to counsel (court-appointed or his own.) We can assume that such counsel is able to conduct business in English, for his client, and is also able to contract a translator, if needed.

(3) As for pleading Spanish, Cree, or even the Arabic of a jihadi, see # 1 and 2.

In the event that he is not a citizen, but seeks all the rights and privileges of U.S. jurisprudence, or is simply an angry fanatic, like the recent example of (Moussawi, was it?) who was chiefly concerned with martyrdom and cursing the infidels, #2 would take care of him.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

The usual false dichotomy, that if we make English the national language, then other languages will not be "allowed." All languages are allowed. To give one language preferred status is not to forbid others.

Interesting that my carnival submission this month is on a similar topic. http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2006/05/diversity-training.html

[probligo]

Rich raises a good point.

If English is the "official language" to the extent that no other is permissable in a Court for example, what rights would a person have whose only means of communication was signing?

Why should Spanish or Cree be regarded any differently?

[rich]

There are court cases on whether written English language notice, given to a non-English speaker, is constitutional.

One of them is a criminal case, Commonwealth v. Olivo (1975, Mass. Supreme Judicial Court.)

Olivo basically says if there is to be written notice in a language other than English, this is a legislative decision, not a judicial decision. (No Massachusetts law at that time required notice in a language other than English.)

The issue is not race or ethnicity, it is language and at times literacy. Peoples of all races and ethnic origins are able speak and read various languages.

In Olivo, a criminal conviction was upheld because the non-English speaking recipient of an eviction letter had the obligation to get the letter translated and then comply with the terms of the letter. The defendants claimed they never understood what they were obliged to do. The Court held that you have to find out what such notice means, whether or not you speak or read English. So the court decision applies to non english speakers and to english speakers who are not literate.

There are also some civil cases from Federal Courts along the same lines,

So a bill in Congress staing that English is the national language seems to be a question commited to the legislative branch by judicial decision. The judicial analysis also shows it is not an issue of race or ethnicity.

[Darrell]

Para visión mi comentario en inglés, presione "1"
Jibberish is the official language of the Democrat Party and the Left. Don't you just love people that confuse race with ethnicity or national origin? I suggest that Harry "sk8tr boi" Reid do a little reading on the subject and stop pandering to his base. And a question to reporters out there, did you ask Harry to provide you with a list of drowning victims by name? Or do you just take a Dem's word for everything these days? Isn't English proficiency a requisite for citizenship? Should it not be the same for those that steal that privilege?

[KnightErrant]

I must thank you for encouraging me to do the proper historical research on this topic. Although, I suspect, you will not like the results.

A nutshell. The "English-only" movement is older than the republic. Ben Franklin campaigned against the German speaking Pennsylvania-Dutch in 1753. French, with English, are the two official languages of Louisana because of the large Cajun population. The United States is home to 53 distinct Native American languages, the most widely spoken is Navaho.

I believe English should be learn because it is the language of commerce. But that is the only reason. The United States of America is a unique blending of cultures from around the globe. Like forging an alloy, this blending makes us stronger. Trying to impose some single, unitary language and culture is insane, impossible, and can only divide us.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

My sons from Romania, who spoke mainly Romanian (some Hungarian) until well into their teen years, believe in US English.

[probligo]

"It is a demand to learn to speak, write and understand Dutch when someone wants to immigrate here. Immigrants must pass a major test; about Dutch culture, history and, most importantly, our language. If they do not pass that test, they don't get in.

You wanna move to a country? You gotta learn the language of the majority."

Michael, it is no different in NZ.

What is not being said, by either side, is the difference between a requirement to speak and understand an official language and the right for an immigrant person to retain and teach their children their home language and culture.

So, to give a different example, there are a considerable number of ex-pat Maori living in Sydney Australia. They have taken with them their culture and language. There is now a florishing Maori cultural group who have flown the ditch these past two years to compete in various cultural events back here - as "Ngai Aussie".

Now, what I hear through these debates is that such cultural heritage must be abandoned when you enter the US. Forget that language is an inseperable part of culture. Leave it all at the door.

"We are all Americans here".

[Jeremayakovka]

As I've said before, the Democratic Party's theme song these days is "Desperado."

[Michael Galien]

Uhm. Did I kill the debate...?

[Michael Galien]

Oh, one more thing

It is a demand to learn to speak, write and understand Dutch when someone wants to immigrate here. Immigrants must pass a major test; about Dutch culture, history and, most importantly, our language. If they do not pass that test, they don't get in.

You wanna move to a country? You gotta learn the language of the majority.

[Michael Galien]

What a wonderful comment from slowtrain. Indeed, an article on its own and one of the reasons your blog probably has one of the best comment sections on the net, in my humble opinion.

The entire debate is ridiculous. Call me European, but it is completely normal here to have an official language, let alone a 'national' language. Different countries have different languages and it is pragmatic but also common sense, anyone?, to have an official language.
This compromise: national language, is idiotic.

Did you know that Belgium has different official languages? Most speak Dutch or French. That those groups don't feel a band with eachother at all? That they consider themselves either 'Vlaming' or 'Wallonier'?
Lets face it; language is culture, culture binds.

To call it 'racist' is so ridiculous, i'm not even getting into that.

[Ghost Dansing]

I suspect that those playing "English and the Official Language" are up to bald-faced politics at its worst. There is not a issue here of Liberalism or any notion of proper mechanisms and functions of government...it is not about governmental form in any way, except one:

Making English the official language defines the limits to which government can be held accountable for accomodating non-English speakers. There are limits to every application of general ideology.

Non-English speakers are already accomodated in the United States through free market, specifically there is media, marketing and other mercantile interests that are already services by foreign-language renditions of the products and services.

As long as there is not an "official language" with which to provide the services of government, there can be pressure to provide everything from Public Education to highway road signage in multiple languages.

Why? Because the Constitution and other Liberal documents drive the Nation to broad accomodation of plurality under the Law..."e pluribus unum". The extent to which the ideal can be applied is a matter of fiscal and practical application of Public Policy and Law. Some things are simply not fiscally feasible.

While ideologically, as a Liberal Democracy, we might like to expand the linguistic architecture of our Society, it is not feasible to achieve this...certainly not at this time. Someday advances in technology may allow for reconsideration. Certainly an internet-centric society where public information and services are provided in any language on demand would change the calculus.

Now, we only have politicians playing to what they perceive is their constituency...even those advocating the "official language" approach are mostly not arguing on the basis of governmental pragmatism, but some sort of insane notion of "culture wars"...this is certainly true of those arguing against the "official language" legislation as well. We all know that "spanish" is the issue...do they really want "offical bi-lingual" or even "spanish as the official language" based on growing population majority? I think if you pull the thread, you'll find out that is the substratum...but politicians on both sides are simply looking for "voting blocks"...chunks of votes based on their stands.

[liquid]

Great post today Alexandra! I guess they heard that Bush thought the national anthem should be sung in English and so therefore it must be evil and must be challenged with an alternative choice for the people! God forbid any Lefty agree with Bush on any given subject! The hell with what is right and good for America anymore if it produces any harmony with the Bush camp! *wink*

I know there has always been conflict, but hasn't anyone noticed the campaign of 'man against man' and 'nation against nation' keeps growing so thick that the path of "all things American" is looking so overgown that we need "a light" held up to guide us through it? It's as if any rational common sense 'good things' are being called evil today and the 'evil things' are spoken of as good. This transformation of delusion that causes this reversal thinking is sweeping the very air we breath and it's fogging up not only our exchange of oxygen in order to survive, but just like the heavy white debris that swept NYC after the towers fell--it's covering everyone in it's thick path and blinding our sight! Are we being blindfolded before the execution?

It seems to me that rewriting history isn't enough for the 'Hard Left' thinkers anymore...similar to the acts of Madonna, they have to push it one more lower level and pre-vamp tomorrow's policy scripts the night before; like some dress rehearsal gone wrong and it's like they need more props for their performances that add on shock value! Pacing the floor and wringing their hands in panic, they stay up all night plotting with unrest as they try to look for new opposites on all things!

Eventually, if this continues, we Americans are going to feel like "aliens" in our own country (if you don't already) and if things don't change, the blood that was shed for freedom will fade into the sunset like an old spaghetti western shown on faded out film. Are you hearing the whistling tune yet? We will then hear the director yell "cut" and at that very moment, after a moment of brief silence, there will be alot of confused noise. That would be "the crew" packing up the set for a new location -- this one is suddenly unrecognizable for the veiwing audience.

[jainphx]

English! we don't need no stinking English, at least to hear the Dems say so. Where did sanity go in that party.

[Angel]

Those who dont fear democracy being undermined, will be the first to panic with sheer terror when it inevitably is and trust me..they will deny any collusion whatsoever. great read!