English Only – A Stand Against Diversity

By Brian Grimmer

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there are 322 spoken languages spoken in the United States (Fact Sheets). This impressive number of languages, more than 1 language for every million citizens in the United States, is a direct consequence of one of our most common individual hereditary traits - immigration. With exception to a small 1.5% indigenous population (Ogunwole), the majority of Americans can trace their ancestry to a respective old country. Immigration has transformed America from a country of white-privilege into that of a literal melting pot in both the cultural and linguistic sense. This linguistic diversity allows for such possibilities as enjoying a croissant (French)for breakfast, while driving a Saab (Swedish) to our morning karate (Japanese) class in Durango (Basque), Colorado (Spanish).

A diverse pool of languages among the citizens of the United States could be viewed as a treasured and sacred cultural resource for that society. Language is a resource proven time and time again to be considered as valuable and important contributor to successful business, education, defense, and civil service activities alike. Like all treasures, this valuable social and cultural resource should be protected and nurtured.

One manner in which the society in America recognizes and instills the value of linguistics is in the “foreign” language requirements at both the secondary and collegiate levels of education. This requirement has become the expected norm in education across the world in order to graduate. While many of us in academia can quickly recognize the value of such diversity within the sociological fabric, there are xenophobic elements within our society at work who do not view diversity with the same optimism. For whatever reasons these xenophobes may have, in their endeavors to make America an “English-only” nation, these ideas serve to distract society from a path of peaceful coexistence and acceptance to path of hate and mistrust.

"We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house. (Shaw)" Theodore Roosevelt wrote the previous quote in 1907 in his support of the idea of an English-only America. So vehement were his words that with a little updating to match the appropriate derogatory terminologies, the above could have convincingly been said recently by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in response to that state’s racial legislations against Hispanics. Fortunately, the English-only movement has not succeeded in passing any national legislation.

With the advancements enjoyed by civil rights over the past century, it is simply disturbing that revered individuals such as an American president, vested with the responsibility of leading the country into war should the need arise, would consider irrelevant traits (such as color, race, faith, wealth, or language) in order to determine the character and value of the individual or the cultural group to a nation. Even more disturbing is the idea that the attitudes displayed by a political leader are often representative of the voting constituency.

A century later, the same elements are still working the propaganda machine and their tools of hate in a concerted effort to destroy the great linguistic diversity we enjoy as a society in their efforts to make English the only “official” language of the United States.  Such a philosophy does not reflect the diversity upon which the people of the United States claim their country is built upon, nor does such thought bode well for the near future as the face of America continues to caramelize and become browner as we move forward. Reflecting a more realistic view on the matter, in a 1987 essay entitled"Here come the linguistic fascists," , linguist Geoffrey Pullum accuses the English-First movement of "hatred and suspicion of aliens and immigrants." Pullum further equates the importance of adopting English-only on a national level to that of adopting hotdogs as the official food of baseball. (Pullum)

Historically, America’s linguistic tolerance has been less than accepting on a socio-political level. Though popular history tends to overlook the details and paint a picture of acceptance and tolerance, deeper examination can uncover the seedy underbelly that gets glossed over in the name of patriotism and nationalistic agendas. Such examination of popular history provides two commonly cited examples of mass-tolerance towards non-English people; the periods following the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of 75,000 Spanish-speaking peoples from the territory ceded to the United States by Mexico following the Mexican-American War.

From the Mexican-American War, the United States acquired the southwestern states of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, and portions of Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. This territory amounts to nearly 1/4 of the Continental United States. In both the above cases, with large numbers of French or Spanish-only speaking citizens residing in the newly acquired territories of the United States at that time, the need for bi-lingual due-process was recognized and then implemented into law.

While the popular history in this case shines with acceptance in this example, the political debates leading up to approving the purchase painted a much different picture of the interests represented. Even by 1803, elements of the political apparatus within the United States had acquired their xenophobic tendencies. In his book Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansionism, Walter Nugent describes how critics of the Louisiana Purchase pondered over the properness of granting citizenship to these Spanish, French and Free Black “foreigners. (Nugent)”

The purpose for establishing laws remained the same regardless of the government in charge. Publishing said laws concurrently in English and Spanish, or French was not for civil rights or freedom of speech under the First Amendment, but merely an effect means to police, inform, and control the people. If the laws are known and understood by the people, the laws are better obeyed.

As stated previously, America gained about 75,000 people in 1849 that would today be classified as Hispanics. Current U.S. Census models predict that Hispanics could make up as much as 60% of the American population by 2050 (Population). History has many examples where the oppressed outnumber the oppressor. In such cases, radical social change is bound to occur as the new majority asserts its newfound status of power. The creation of English-only laws in America could provide precedent for the creation of Spanish-only laws when more American’s speak Spanish than they do English. In time, “No hablo español” could become less excusable than “No hablo Inglés” is today in some circles.
            Many of the past rationales used in the past to justify a national language just do not fit into modern views of individual freedom of choice and personal expression, let alone the globalist nature of our society in general. With America playing such a vital role in international affairs, having a diverse pool of native speakers to choose from is a national treasure that is irreplaceable and should be protected and revered. English-only legislation only serves to destroy that very diversity we so cherish and admire.

Works Cited:

“Fact Sheets: Languages Spoken in the United States According to the 2000 U.S. Census” US English. Web.  20 Jan. 2012.

Nugent, Walter. “Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansionism.” Random House Digital, Inc.. pp. 65–68. 2009. Web. Google Books. 20 Jan. 2012.

Ogunwole, Stella U. “The American Indian and Alaska Native Population:  2000.” US Census Bureau. Census 2000 Brief. 2002. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.

“Population Profile of the United States.” U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.

Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1987), "Here come the linguistic fascists." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory . Vol. 5 (4): 603–9.Web. 20 Jan 2012.

Shaw, Albert. “Review of Reviews and World's Work, Volume 59.” New York, Review of Reviews Company. 1919. Google Books. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.