Santiago Andrade
Professor Tamayo
CHS 115
19 November 2017
Battle of Ideals
Minorities that have different dialects have encountered bias and bigotry by close-minded American citizens who are able to speak Standard English perfectly. Some sources point to the fact that at times, the English Only movement has caused racism to sprout in very subtle ways. Much like when politics instigate racism through laws such as the ones Daniel HoSang, Leslie Grant, and Nobleza Asuncion-Lande discuss which as a consequence of this people of color are defenseless against laws. In other sources it details that the idea of multilingualism can cause reformation in people's values and ethics. As in the times that multilingualism has helped people retain their principles in much like what the Mena Report, Daniel HoSang, and Melinda D. Anderson address. In a sense English-Only stratagems ought to be repudiated considering that it exemplifies discrimination and loss of identity for minorities, because of language competence the people that don’t understand English as well are taken advantage by those who do.
This incessant struggle between multilingualism and English Only movement has made people think of the movement as the catalyst for linguistic discrimination. This can be seen through Leslie Grant’s article "Multilingualism in the United States: Where We've Been and Where We Are" in which she details how English Only movement has instigated linguistic discrimination in politics. The aspect of linguistic discrimination in politics is explained when she notes the Naturalization act of 1906. Grant introduces the fact that the act “insisted that immigrants speak English in order to become naturalized citizens.” (Grant 35) This denotes an attempt at disconnection between immigrants and citizens as immigrants don’t qualify as “naturalized citizens”. Grant also tackles the aspect of linguistic discrimination in by noting the 1974 Lau v. Nichols case. Grant explains that the Supreme Court found that just giving the students books, teachers, and curriculums in English “did not enable them to take part in schooling if they did not understand the language.” (Grant 35) As a result of this students started to be treated differently because they did not conform to the what would be thought of as a standard. This means that minorities will be taken advantage of by those who follow the English-Only movement until they assimilate to what the majority thinks of as natural.
The clash between English-Only movement and multilingualism has made it so that the use of a single language becomes the dominant official language for all countries.. As a consequence of this people think that minorities that speak other languages are discriminated against. As seen in Nobleza Asuncion-Lande’s “Multilingualism, Politics, and ‘Filipinism’ ” where she epitomizes how the English-Only movement incites the repressiveness of adopting multiple languages. She explores this when she talks about new, independent countries, such as the Philippines, that have to pick their own official languages. She states that countries normally don’t have multiple official languages and as such they have to adopt one singular language to accommodate for all of the people that inhabit said new country (Asuncion-Lande 685). From this we can see how the English-Only movement produced this aversion towards countries trying to allow for multiple languages to act as their respective languages. They don’t want to break the norm and try to stick to the one language rule, but in doing this they ignore the wishes and values of their citizens. The people that still want to speak their own native language are discriminated against by those who abide by the language imposed by the government, as they think that they are going against the country itself.
Yet again the confrontation between multilingualism and the English-Only movement can be seen creating problems for minorities. In this case we explore the idea that Daniel HoSang introduces in “Special Interest Hijacked the Civil Rights Movement” from Racial Propositions. In this chapter, HoSang presents the idea of politics trying to furtively enact discrimination against minorities through the use of controversial propositions, namely propositions 227 and 187 (HoSang 201). Proposition 227 advocated for LEP students to be treated as “special” and take different classes than those that speak English perfectly, and proposition 187 tried to ban public bilingual education programs. Through this we can see the problems created for minorities. As more and more opportunities are taken away from them through the government issuing propositions such as these, minorities start to feel like they must change who they are to fit into society. To be able to be accepted as a “regular” person, they must renounce what distinguishes them from others and adopt a new way of life. Otherwise they are seen as a threat by the people that consider English-Only the step in the right direction.
There are times however, in which the clash between multilingualism and the English-Only movement has developed a way for people to sustain their values. In the article “ The Cost of English-Only”, by Melinda D. Anderson demonstrates how profound of an impact the English-Only movement had on multilingualism. Through the article, Anderson argues that as facets of politics such as propositions, much like Prop. 227, try to detach minorities from their principles, people will rise against it and defend what they believe in. One of the ways that people find to defend their values was through the use of “dual-language programs.” These programs help minorities in retaining their values by allowing them to go about their normal lives and not have to be pressured by assimilating to English-Only. It does this by detailing the positives of multilingualism. By explaining the benefits of dual language programs such as “stronger literacy skills, narrowing achievement gaps, and higher graduation rates,” (2015, November 2) it paints multilingualism in a new light. As a side-effect of this, the heavy burden that is placed upon minorities because of the English-Only movement is eased, and they don’t feel like they have to change themselves.
The struggle between multilingualism and English, when looking at the politics of it, has helped in promoting the adoption of multilingualism on special occasions. Much like what the Mena Report details in “United States : Language rights, participation, security and access to justice fundamental to welfare of communities in Kosovo, says High Commissioner Thors,” which shows us the importance of multilingualism for political documents and authorities. This is seen when High Commissioner Thors speaks up on how it is important to understand different languages as it’ll make “the implementation of legislation more efficient and improve the quality and the consistency of different language versions of legal acts.” (2016, June 10) Thors also points out that it is important for people to know how to speak more than one language especially for “local government officials, who regularly engage with members of public, to be able to communicate with every person in their community.” This means that people do not have to feel pressured into assimilating to the ideologies that are similar to the English-Only standards. By having a political figure that advocates for and implores others to accept multilingualism, it allows for minorities to not be restrained by the English-Only movement. On occasions like this, minorities can truly be themselves as politics don’t force them to conform to norms that they’re not used to but rather allow for them to feel safe thanks to the leniency of such ideologies.
As a consequence of being compared to something horrible like Nazis, those who discriminate against minorities start to resign their old ways when looking at the altercation between multilingualism and the English-Only movement. Much like what Daniel HoSang discusses in “We Have No Master Race” from Racial Propositions, as we see that those who are discriminative of minorities start reflecting on themselves when compared to Nazis by political figures. This is mostly seen when HoSang acknowledges Mayor Bowron’s advocacy of “Unlike our enemy we have no master race,” and Frank Murphy’s “All Men Are Brothers” speech. In both of these occasions we can see how political figures try to make others detach themselves from their discriminatory ways. In using phrases such as “ those who have been nurtured on the myths of superior and inferior races and practice discrimination against other Americans” (HoSang 14) and the “Nazi disease,” it makes people take a look at themselves and see that what they are doing is wrong if the are being addressed in such a way. Through this people start changing their way of thinking, they aren’t as close minded as they once were. They allow for others to maintain their identity or they run the risk of being compared to something that they wholeheartedly believe is wrong. Which in turn deems the English-Only movement as an undesirable ideology to follow and people instead adopt the idea of multilingualism with a much better attitude.
As seen in the sources above the constant battle carried out by the English-Only movement has led to a plethora of different phenomena. Through their multiple interactions, we have seen how the English-Only movement can be seen as responsible for the linguistic discrimination practices and dominant anti-immigrant attitudes that are still going on in the United States. Much like what Daniel HoSang discusses in “Special Interest Hijacked the Civil Rights Movement” from Racial Propositions. It also shows that by imposing English as a de facto language alienates people instead of actually bringing them together thus preventing from the unification of the nation. Similar to what Nobleza Asuncion-Lande’s “Multilingualism, Politics, and ‘Filipinism’ ” and Leslie Grant’s "Multilingualism in the United States: Where We've Been and Where We Are" discuss. At the same time we see the what the positives of this struggle brought forth by the multilingualism side of things. As demonstrated by Melinda D. Anderson’s, and the Mena Report’s articles. In looking at this argument, we can hopefully address the problems involving multilingualism and the English-Only movement that still plague not only the United States but also the world.