Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost.nifl.gov [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA09055; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:50:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:50:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <v03010d09b08df5169009@[128.148.147.28]> Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Janet Isserlis <Janet_Isserlis@Brown.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:1495] Re: English Only Discussion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO Content-Length: 2568 Lines: 46 Deanna, It is dangerous to ignore the integral connections between language, culture, domination and assimilation that are interwoven throughout these discussions. While it is difficult to argue *against* greater universal understanding and some degree of unification, the imposition of language policy which would control - and potentially limit - so many, many things (most notably access to education, properly administered health care and all manner of information ) is not a benign event. Resistance to and support of language policy legislation is passionate and vehement BECAUSE of the very explicitly political implications that drive that policy in one way or another. Assimilation itself implies a lack of choice, a forced blending into something which may or may not be desirable to the people upon whom assimilation is being foisted. The issue is not that people don't want to learn English; the issue (one of many, many, many) is that making English the Only Language means that many people will never have access to information that enables them to participate fully in their communities, if that information is not made available in languages other than English. In accepting English Only, even with the good intention of assisting those who'd like to learn to speak the language in doing so, we also say that other languages and cultures are inherently less good and useful, that it's OK not to have signage in hospitals and elsewhere that informs everyone equally, and that it's pretty much OK for people to ignored en masse by the powerful bureaucracies which nonetheless control their lives. We're also saying, then, that it's pretty much OK for significant numbers of citizens in this country to be without linguistic recourse in stating their own opinions, views, needs and issues. Janet Isserlis >> Gentlement and ladies, please...you're discussing >cultural assimilation...not language assimilation...they are two very >different areas...their are thousands of cultural societies in the >United States, all different, all unique to customs brought from their >ancestral beginnings...it would be impossible to unify them: NO ONE IS >TRYING TO DO THIS...but society and the government of the United States >operates on the assumption of a knowledge of English in ALL these >cultures...what we DON'T need, is dissidents bringing political >negativity into a genuine desire to help American citizens become >unified against opposition, and this DOES require a basic unification >of information resource through a common language.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 14:09:41 EDT