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 RAA11210; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:50:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:50:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <s4687e56.083@NMAIL.EPCC.EDU>
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: Andres Muro <AndresM@NMAIL.EPCC.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-ESL:1498] Re: English Only Discussion -Reply
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
Status: RO
Content-Length: 7035
Lines: 147
Date: 11/11/1997 03:14 pm (Tuesday)
From: Andres Muro
To: EPCC.SMTP("aking@coyote.csusm.edu",
"bedgingt@coyote.csusm.edu", "castaned@coyote.csusm.edu",
"cbullock@coyote.csusm.edu", "crumpler@coyote.csusm.edu",
"davidw@coyote.csusm.edu", "dch@coyote.csusm.edu",
"frios@coyote.csusm.edu", "gsenter@coyote.csusm.edu",
"hweinber@coyote.csusm.edu", "ischon@coyote.csusm.edu",
"jhanor@coyote.csusm.edu", "jkeating@coyote.csusm.edu",
"joskeat@coyote.csusm.edu", "jpowell@coyote.csusm.edu",
"jthousan@coyote.csusm.edu", "kjohnson@coyote.csusm.edu",
"knorman@coyote.csusm.edu", "lgerena@coyote.csusm.edu",
"lstowell@coyote.csusm.edu", "mbaldwin@coyote.csusm.edu",
"mbossen@coyote.csusm.edu", "mcdaniel@coyote.csusm.edu",
"mcroghan@coyote.csusm.edu", "mhunting@coyote.csusm.edu",
"mlorimer@coyote.csusm.edu", "necochea@coyote.csusm.edu",
"pkelly@coyote.csusm.edu", "pprado@coyote.csusm.edu",
"rgreen@coyote.csusm.edu", "sjenkins@coyote.csusm.edu",
"slilly@coyote.csusm.edu", "sparsons@coyote.csusm.edu",
"sulanoff@coyote.csusm.edu", "tbennett@coyote.csusm.edu",
"vjacobs@coyote.csusm.edu", "wendling@coyote.csusm.edu"),
EPCC.SMTP("goldberg@coyote.csusm.edu")
Subject: Re: [NIFL-ESL:1484] English Only Discussion -Reply
Merryl:
I don't like Juan, too biblical.
In "My Struggle" (I am not sure how to spell "Main Kampf", and I lost the
book-- Heide, please help) Hitler starts saying the he really did not have
anything against Jews at first. Yet, in observing them, he noticed their
behaviors, which in his eyes were different to those of true Germans.
Furthermore, these differences did not contribute to national unity and
pride, but rather subverted it. His xenophobic rhetoric is very subtle at
first. He does not start saying that he hates all Jews and he wants to kill
them. He simply talks about these cultural differences that are dividing
the proud nation of Germany, and all this other bs. This is exactly the
same rhetoric that has been adopted by the right in the US. They say that
they do not hate immigrants and immigrants are welcomed. However,
they begin to point to these cultural differences, one of them being
language, that are causing our glorious nation to become divided. So, in
essence, the rhetoric is the same. This rhetoric is effective whenever a
depressed portion of the dominant group (ie, white workers in the
mid-west) is going through hard times. At that point politicians begin to
promote xenophobia by blaming all the ills on those who look different.
This is a way to divert attention from the real problems. For example, a
politician trying to get elected will never say something like:
"The problem is that the top 3% of the population controls 85% of the
country's wealth". or "The problem is that workers are loosing jobs
because these top 3% are taking their companies to Asia".
Of course, these 3% would never fund their campaigns. Instead, they
will say things like:
"The problem is that too many undocumented immigrants are applying for
welfare, flooding our schools, refusing to learn English and taking our
jobs. Lets not spend our monies educating these immigrants."
While the first statement is true and the second one is false, the later one
seems easier to believe. Xenophobia works better in desperate times.
While, the English only movement may not result in another Holocaust, it
is, truly a xenophobic movement. It is intended to promote fear among a
depressed group by blaming everything on another more marginalized
depressed group.
Juan...I mean Andres.
>>> Merryl Goldberg <goldberg@coyote.csusm.edu> 11/11/97 02:19pm
>>>
Juan - thanks for sending this out. I do have to write, however, that it
makes me quite uneasy to see the English-only movement compared to
Hitler's rhetoric. At the root of Hitler's rhetoric was an attempt to
annihilate groups of people - which seems to me very different in nature
from scapegoating. Seems to me this line of argument could very well put
people off especially holocaust survivors and their relatives (which
includes millions and millions of family members here in the US).
-Merryl
At 12:04 PM -0800 11/11/97, Andres Muro wrote:
>The English Only movement is a movement of scapegoatism, designed
to
>promote fear among uneducated voters. The rhetoric of the movement
is
>similar to Hitler's "My Struggle". This movement, or variations of it,
>become popular with politicians who want to get votes based on a
>"reduction in spending" agenda. The argument is that we spent too
much
>money on immigrants who are lazy, do not want to assimilate and
refuse
>to learn English. If we vote for these politicians, they will reduce our
>taxes by not paying for bilingual education and other programs
designed
>to aid immigrants and blah, blah, blah.
>
>The English Only movement is not based on any well researched
>pedagogical approach, nor it is based on sound cultural studies. It is, as
I
>said before, a movement designed to promote xenophobia. California's
>Pete Wilson, has been one of the masters at effectvely promoting
>xenophobia among voters.
>
>Regarding the pedagogical value of multilingual education vs. total
>immersion programs, the merits of these approaches depend on context
>and ideology. Street argues that literacy practices are rooted in
ideology;
>and acquisition of literacies are often mediated by power struggles.
>Therefore, the effect of an immersion program, vs. a multilingual
program
>can have different sociocultural and psychological effects, and may be
>received differently depending on the particular context.
>
>Populations who are resisting assimilation and acculturation efforts
from
>a dominant culture will respond differently to pedagogical approaches
>from those populations who are not. Overall, Lambert argues that an
>"additive" pedagogical approach (one that adds to the existing cultural
>experience) is favorable to a "subtractive" approach (one that favors
>one cultural experience while trying to subtract another one). For
>oppressed immigrants with poor self esteem, a subtractive approach
can
>be culturally devastating. This type of approach often can lead to
>passive resistance.
>
>In the anthology "Literacy as Praxis" Ogbu makes an analysis of
>minorities' status and the school experience. Ogbu identifies voluntary
>vs. involuntary minorities. Voluntary minorities are those who came to
>the US voluntarily seeking economic well-being. Minorities who acquired
>such status by slavery, conquest or colonization are involuntary
>minorities. Involuntary minorities may see an immersion approach as a
>cultural threat while voluntary minorities may not perceive this.
>
>Good discussion,
>
>Andres
Merryl R. Goldberg, Ed.D.
COE, CSUSM
San Marcos, CA 92096-0001
(619) 750-4322
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 14:09:42 EDT