I've often heard people say that the United States is a "multicultural" society. "Our diversity is our strength," is the catch phrase for many in America. With multiculturalism comes multilingualism, or the acceptance of different languages in our society. In August of 2000, Bill Clinton issued an executive order (13166) that turned our government into a multilingual service provider. But is this a good thing? My answer would be no, because it discourages immigrants from assimilating into American culture & learning our language. If you want examples of where multilingualism can potentially tear a country apart, look at Belgium & Ukraine.
In Belgium, 60% of the population speaks Dutch (otherwise known as Flemish). The other 40% speak French. Social interaction between the two groups is extemely low. There are separate schools, political parties & television networks. Under Belgium's constitution, the country consists of two distinct regions, Flanders & Wallonia. As you might have guessed, they are divided along linguistic lines. Each region has veto power over the makeup of the central government. A stalemate has occurred over the appointment of a new governing body. Flemish separatists are now demanding that the country be divided into two autonomous parts.
In Ukraine, there is a split between the Ukrainian & Russian languages. Ukrainian is the official language for the former Soviet state. Many want Russian to become the country's second official language. Language was the underlying issue in the 2004 Orange Revolution. The president-elect, Viktor Yushchenko, called making Russian the second official language "too politicized." His opponent backed the idea.
The lesson to be learned here is that language can either unite or divide a nation. Will we face this problem in the United States? My answer is that it is already happening. For example, schools in Illinois have been flooded with Spanish speaking children. Thanks to the state's bilingual education laws, teachers who aren't fluent in Spanish are being forcibly reassigned to other schools. Eventually, they may even face dismissal.
A fight almost broke out at a recent meeting conducted by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) advisory committee. The committee chairman began to give a report in Spanish. An argument then occurred over what language the report should be given in. It got so ugly that police had to be called to avert violence. The on-going debate over language has aggravated racial tensions, pitting blacks & other minorities against hispanics. LAUSD by-laws state that meetings must be conducted in English. However, the school district's staff has told parents that the rule will not be enforced.
My own view is that there is room for only one culture in this country, and that is the American culture. There is also only for one language, and that is the English language. My fear is that we're not going to be the United States of America for much longer. We may have to change the name of the country to the Mall of Humanity.
Here's a thought, teach students other languages when they can best learn more than one language -- in early elementary school. That way you don't have the issue of some students speaking one language and some students speaking another.
Also, the United States doesn't have an official language, English just happens to be the most prominent.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
English is the language of the government, and of the majority of the people.
It is the language of commerce here as well.
Though it is not written down as the "Official" Language of the United States, it is still the language of the United States.
In order to succeed here, you HAVE to understand and speak/write in english.
That is not to exclude other languages from being spoken or written, but there is no positive reason to not posses a working knowledge of english.
Many of the southern states fully utilize both English and Spanish, actually.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yes, but the langauge of our government is English. It is the language of the official federal documents, dating back to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (and further back, technically), as well as the language of every state's constitution, and the language of the Congresses, both state and federal.
That many have changed and print signs and paperwork bilingually does not take away from that.
I wholly support not only english being the official language of the United States, but I fully support the ability to read and write in English to be a requirement for an immigrant to become a citizen.
As this article mentions, when you do not have a common language, there is always going to be division.
It is the language of the official federal documents, dating back to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (and further back, technically), as well as the language of every state's constitution, and the language of the Congresses, both state and federal.
I believe that would be considered tradition. The original federal documents are in English because the writers happen to speak English. If the Founding Fathers happened to speak Spanish, then we would more than likely have Spanish documents.
As this article mentions, when you do not have a common language, there is always going to be division.
The problem with the Ukraine and Belgium isn't so much that there are two different languages as the people are unilingual. They speak only their language, instead of learning both languages equally (or nearly so).
Canada, for example, is bilingual (as a whole). While there are areas that are distinctly French and others that are distinctly English, there are places in between that are bilingual and there is no such segregation.
I wholly support not only english being the official language of the United States, but I fully support the ability to read and write in English to be a requirement for an immigrant to become a citizen.
And I fully support children learning Spanish before high school. :?!)
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That's true, but they didn't. Playing "What If" with history isn't really productive. If they spoke Martian, then we'd be writing and speaking martian. If they spoke latin, then we'd speak latin. But they didn't. They spoke and wrote in English. As such, all government information is available in english. (While it is ALSO available in other languages in some parts, it is available EVERYWHERE in English.)
Which is why it is important to have a common language. In the United States, it is english, as evidenced by the plethora of people speaking english and that all village, town, borough, city, county, state and federal governmental groups have their forms in English.
As I've said, I have no problem with people learning other languages. That doesn't take away from (nor it such a suggestion a recommendation against) everyone being able to read and write and speak in English in the United States.
Playing "What If" with history isn't really productive.
Not necessarily. The intention was to show that the government documents are not in English because that is our "official" language, but rather that it was because the people who wrote it happened to speak a certain language. Language, like religion, was intentionally left undeclared to promote diversity.
Which is why it is important to have a common language.
There's nothing wrong with having more than one common language, though. In fact, there are cases where having more than one common language is beneficial. Some languages have better ways of describing or putting certain things than other languages.
That doesn't take away from (nor it such a suggestion a recommendation against) everyone being able to read and write and speak in English in the United States.
I agree, people coming in should learn English, but not because it's the "official" language of the country. Rather, because it happens to be the main language of most of the country. On the other hand, though, does it have to be the only main language? I don't think so.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I never claimed it was our official language. I claimed (and accurately) that all Government documents are found in english on every level of Government. That some are also found in other languages does not take away from that simple and basic fact.
As for leaving language undeclared to promote 'diversity' seems kind of silly. You promote diversity by having a common language so that people can talk with one another and learn about one another. By NOT having a common language, you only promote segregation.... not diversity.
That's fine. Let's teach a minority of people how to speak english before we require that a majority of people learn another language, ok?
like I said, let's get a minority of people understanding one language (english) before requiring that a majority of people learn another language as a 'common language' . . . it is a simple issue of logistics. Also, what a horrible waste of time and money to have translate every government document (imagine the legal issues of translating all the official federal and judicial documents! They argue about the subtle meanings of words in one language, can you imagine them trying to change it to another?!)
Since all government documents on every level are found in english, it is simply logical and efficient to require that everyone speak english. That does not detract from other languages, but it is stilly (not to mention kind of slanted against english) to suggest that, instead of a minority of people learning english, the majority should learn their language instead.
If you move to France, you'll have to learn french... some may speak english, but you'll just have to learn French.
Same applies to Afghanistan and their dialects. Same goes for Russia...
Why can't it be that way here?
Correct me if I'm wrong but it is not a law in those countries that you must speak their language is it?(I highly doubt this in France since multiple languages are taught over the course of a child's life) But instead people speak that language b/c it is easiest to communicate in. So people coming to this country will learn to speak english b/c it is the easiest to communicate in whether it is law or not.
If they don't how is that effecting you? It hurts them b/c they may not be able to trade goods with you or hire you for a service or work for you but that is harming them...not you. So what's it to you if they speak english or not.
"They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference." Bill Hicks
Segregation of society based on language barriers hurts everyone.
What is your opposition to people living here speaking english when every village, town, borough, city, county, state and federal government document is in english, as well as the incredibly vast majority road signs, traffic signs, and storefront signs?
Again why does someone no being able to read road signs effect their driving...do you think everyone with a license is literate?(Not b/c they are from another country, but simply b/c they never learned to read.)
Segregation does hurt society. Which is why I think that all legal immigrants should prove they can read and write english, and ALL gov't issued things should come in english...ie voting ballots, driver's test, etc.
Segregation is the right answer, b/c "they won't be able to read road signs" is not.
However I'd also like to see foreign language taught to younger students...not only for communication skills but learning another language is a stimulant for your brain, it helps overall not just in that area.
"They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference." Bill Hicks
I think there is a difference between multiculturalism and multilingualism. For example, my mom grew up where potato dumplings are a delicacy, and my boyfriend grew up where you eat bagels (good ones, not the type in supermarkets) every Sunday morning. I spent a great deal of time just on this side of the Mexican border (literally... people used to get lost and end up in Mexico), and tex-mex cuisine was quite common. Those are three very distinct cultures, but in each of the areas, they spoke English. Maybe another language as well, but still English. And they aren't part of any universal American culture (like baseball is).
I do think that students should be required to be at least bilingual, though, as they are in European countries.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
I would agree that it is beneficial to learn another language, but I would rather see what is already taught become better before they add to it.
We're having a hard enough time as it is in the education field.
I had to take 2 'foreign language' classes in high school. when I started, they only had spanish, but later learned german. By the time I left, I had 2 semisters of german and 1 of spanish.
In college, I took a semister of greek.
I have no problem with learning other languages.... but the main focus in schools here should be on making sure that they have a good grasp on how to read, write and speak english. Especially if we want them to succeed.
And we shouldn't wait til high school to start teaching them, either. Elementary school is the best, and then a third language could be added on in high school. Of course, that would pose a problem to people like me, who moved an average of once a year.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
My personal goal is to homeschool. At least to, if not through, high school.
To offset the complications of home schooling, my (currently nonexistant) children will be involved in boy or girl scouts, as well as community sports (if they wish) and or community band organizations. They will also be involved in a good youth group.
That will grant the ability to get the social interaction they need, but still give them a chance to get (what I feel is) a better education than our public schools currently give.
The two biggest hurdles for homeschooling (apart from the permitting) is a lack of social interaction and an inability to understand due dates, if the parents are slack on such things.
If you can manage to home school, feel free to. I think it's a good thing to do, if you can handle it. Of course, my stepmother home schooled my little sister, and she didn't learn anything until after she was removed from that situation, so I don't have the greatest opinion of it.
I personally won't have the time to home school. My career won't really allow it, and should I marry my current boyfriend, his career wouldn't allow it either. So, my children will probably end up in a private school.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Whether it is home, private or public schooling, the students are quite dependent upon the teacher... you are correct.
I think Belgium is a poor example to use in this particular comparison to the United States' dilemma. The South of Belgium (the part that borders France) speaks French and the North (the part that borders the Netherlands) speaks Dutch. I think this split may have occurred historically at some point. I do know that Flemish Belgium used to be a part of the Netherlands. Europe determined it's borders because centuries of wars that it's endured, not because they have an abundance of immagrants from countries all over the world, as in the case of the US. The division between the two languages spoken in Belgium is purely coincidental in that each region has its own language. In America, the variety of languages is more evenly spread throughout the country. There may be certain places with more Spanish-speaking people than in other areas, but there is no clear divide between these regions, as in Belgium. I see your point, however, and I do agree that people who come to America should learn English, but I think that should be the standard no matter what country you go to. If you move to a foreign country, learn the language.