Thursday, June 01, 2006
About National Languages
My friend H and I have been having a heated exchange of e-letters regarding language; specifically, whether the United States should impose the English language as the official language of the country and require everyone to use English in dealing with government agencies and business firms. At least, that’s what I think the argument is about.
I’m not sure about H. I quote from a recent exchange of e-mail:
H considers himself a Conservative and me a Liberal. In other e-letters he comments that Liberals and Conservatives often talk past each other, not to each other. I think our extended conversation about language is an example of talking past. We are concerned about different things.
If I understand him correctly, H likes the idea of “English Only” because it would create a more nearly homogeneous society if everyone used English as his or her primary language. There would be less prejudice. People would like each other more.
While H concentrates on the result of a successful campaign to eradicate languages other than English, I think about the injustice inflicted on a group of people who are forced to give up their traditional language. Historically, such a deprivation has usually been associated with a destruction of their traditional culture. I feel embarrassed at what Americans in previous generations did to the natives of this continent. They took their lands. They took their children and put them in special “Indian schools” where they were forced to give up the languages of their parents and speak “English only.” They destroyed their culture, took away their dignity, and made them poor relations in a culture imported from Europe. Of course, those are things that conquering peoples have done since there have been peoples.
I think about the example of Turkey. I don’t know what H thinks about Turkey, as I haven’t asked him yet. The Turks have a mind-set like those Americans who eagerly support the “English Only” movement. There were minorities in Turkey who spoke Armenian and Kurdish. The Armenians were Christians. The Kurds were and still are Sunni Muslims, as are the Turks themselves. We know what happened to the Armenian minority in Turkey during World War I. They were expelled from the country. Many of them died. After the war, people in the world forgot about the Armenians. Hitler noted at one time that if the Turks could get away with exterminating the Armenians, the Germans surely could get away with exterminating the Jews.
These are things I think of when I think of “English Only.” I am not an Armenian nor am I a Jew. I don’t have any personal reason for sadness at what happened to Armenians in Turkey or Jews in Germany. I think they were bad things that should not have happened. I think they happened because of prejudice against a minority.
I believe that a campaign to install English as the primary language in all residents would entail educating children in English. The children would be taught not to use any other language, particularly the language of their parents. They would be separated from their parents, perhaps not physically but certainly culturally. The eradication of a language usually goes along with eradication of a culture.
I’m not sure about H. I quote from a recent exchange of e-mail:
H: YOU GIVE NO WEIGHT TO MY THOUGHT THAT "COMMON LANGUAGE MEANS THAT PERSON IS MORE LIKE YOU SO YOU WILL BE MORE INCLINED TO LIKE THEM". I AM NOT SAYING IT IS EVERYTHING BUT I GIVE IT SOME WEIGHT. LET ME TURN IT AROUND AND ASK YOU TO TELL ME THE BAD SIDE OF "ENGLISH ONLY?
AJS: As near as I can understand, your case is (1) a single language tends to unify a society and discourage discrimination; (2) Canada has problems because it has two official languages. These two arguments are not persuasive to me.
H: YOU JUMPED BY THIS TOO FAST. THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN CANADA BECAUSE OF THIS, ARE THERE NOT? THEY STILL MAY HAVE PROBLEMS BUT WOULDN'T THEY BE LESS?
AJS: As near as I can understand, your case is (1) a single language tends to unify a society and discourage discrimination; (2) Canada has problems because it has two official languages. These two arguments are not persuasive to me. I agree with the idea that there should be at least one language in a country that everyone uses, even if imperfectly. All Chinese are encouraged to learn Mandarin. All educated persons in India have to learn English, which is the "official language" of the country, much to the annoyance of the speakers of Hindi, Gujerati, Tamil, and a hundred or so other languages. In fact, classical India split into modern India and Pakistan because of religious differences, not language.
H considers himself a Conservative and me a Liberal. In other e-letters he comments that Liberals and Conservatives often talk past each other, not to each other. I think our extended conversation about language is an example of talking past. We are concerned about different things.
If I understand him correctly, H likes the idea of “English Only” because it would create a more nearly homogeneous society if everyone used English as his or her primary language. There would be less prejudice. People would like each other more.
While H concentrates on the result of a successful campaign to eradicate languages other than English, I think about the injustice inflicted on a group of people who are forced to give up their traditional language. Historically, such a deprivation has usually been associated with a destruction of their traditional culture. I feel embarrassed at what Americans in previous generations did to the natives of this continent. They took their lands. They took their children and put them in special “Indian schools” where they were forced to give up the languages of their parents and speak “English only.” They destroyed their culture, took away their dignity, and made them poor relations in a culture imported from Europe. Of course, those are things that conquering peoples have done since there have been peoples.
I think about the example of Turkey. I don’t know what H thinks about Turkey, as I haven’t asked him yet. The Turks have a mind-set like those Americans who eagerly support the “English Only” movement. There were minorities in Turkey who spoke Armenian and Kurdish. The Armenians were Christians. The Kurds were and still are Sunni Muslims, as are the Turks themselves. We know what happened to the Armenian minority in Turkey during World War I. They were expelled from the country. Many of them died. After the war, people in the world forgot about the Armenians. Hitler noted at one time that if the Turks could get away with exterminating the Armenians, the Germans surely could get away with exterminating the Jews.
These are things I think of when I think of “English Only.” I am not an Armenian nor am I a Jew. I don’t have any personal reason for sadness at what happened to Armenians in Turkey or Jews in Germany. I think they were bad things that should not have happened. I think they happened because of prejudice against a minority.
I believe that a campaign to install English as the primary language in all residents would entail educating children in English. The children would be taught not to use any other language, particularly the language of their parents. They would be separated from their parents, perhaps not physically but certainly culturally. The eradication of a language usually goes along with eradication of a culture.
