America is a pluralistic society. We as a political culture have a long political tradition which has always affirmed the principle of “majority rule” while working to safeguard “minority rights.” We do this with respect to religion, creed and color to name just a few areas of law. We need to do the same with language. Massachusetts should take a powerful step towards recognizing the unique nature the English language plays in our cultural and political history.
For too long, debates around adopting English as our “official” language have been turned into a political football used to attack minorities and immigrants or as a wedge issue designed to score quick political points. We need a sober and thoughtful debate. English is the language of commerce not just in Boston but also in Berlin and Buenos Aires. Refusing to recognize that universal truth would be a disservice and intellectually dishonest. By the same measure, however; our citizens benefit from being in a social environment which is pluralistic and diverse. Differences, cultural, societal and linguistic make us a stronger community, and a stronger commonwealth. With that said, we as Americans have a cultural history tied in significant measure to the English language.
The works of Mark Twain or Tennessee Williams or Eugene O’Neill do not occur in a social vacuum. They are products of their time and place. No one should question whether reading these American masters in English is preferable to reading a translation. The social values these writers deliver can certainly be grasped through a translation, and if that is the only way one can avail themselves of the author’s work, then one should read the translation. But the text and prose of their language complete with context and nuance cannot be anymore picked up by an American who can’t read Havel’s work in Czech or Hugo in the original French. After all, Huck Finn is much richer a story if one understands the story arc beyond simply knowing about painting a fence.
It is critical that we also affirm language rights for all Massachusetts residents. In doing so, we acknowledge that language rights are a kind of civil right worthy of protection. Further, the point of any measure which seeks to recognize English’s central role as a part of our common cultural heritage must not create new barriers for those amongst us which are non native speakers In fact, our political and cultural history demands that we act to safeguard language rights for those amongst us whom are not primarily English speakers. To this end, I will if elected to the Massachusetts Senate introduce legislation on day one which calls for recognition of English as the official language of our commonwealth while also taking steps to preserve and safeguard minority language rights for all Bay Staters.
I believe this approach creates a valuable opportunity to fundamentally change our view of language as a political issue by permitting all Massachusettians to speak to the issue of language rights. In doing so, we affirm again the idea of majority rule-minority rights by recognizing the primacy of the English language in our daily lives as a cultural touchstone while also acknowledging other linguistic and cultural minorities among us here in our commonwealth. Rather, it is my hope that this debate will serve to deepen our commitment to pluralism in a multicultural society.
Steve May is a democrat from Hull, running for the State Senate in the Plymouth and Norfolk district covering the towns of: Cohasset, Duxbury, Hingham, Hull, Marshfield, Norwell, Scituate and Weymouth. For more information about Steve’s campaign go to: steve2012.com
English is already the de facto common language and I believe some command of it is required for US citizenship. It is already the language of our public schools. The only purpose laws such as this serve IMO is to tell non-native speakers that they are less welcome and second-class. Personally, I’d like to see a requirement that every high school graduate be fluent in English and one other modern language. There is the global community to think about as well and students are better prepared for more opportunities if they can speak at least a couple of languages. As a practical matter I see this as a solution in search of a problem.
You spend four paragraphs equivocating here without actually giving us one legitimate benefit to making English our state’s “official” language. To “recognize” a “cultural touchstone.” Yeah, that’s a good reason…
Meanwhile, your Huck Finn nonsense aside, you fail explain what you see as the consequences of passage of your proposed legislation. Do you intend, as in almost all states with English as an “official” language, to require that almost all official government business at all levels must be conducted *solely* in English? Is your intent to mandate that all public documents, records, legislation and regulations, as well as hearings, official ceremonies and public meetings be produced *solely* in English. No more translations, ever? Or do you plan exceptions- as some states have – for such things as public health and safety services, judicial proceedings, and foreign language instruction. How about documents promoting tourism? Or are non-English speakers no longer welcome to visit our state in Steve May’s future Massachusetts?
What nonsense this all is. As a social worker, I urge you to read up on what your cohorts have to say about cultural diversity:
http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/features/issue/diversity.asp
The NASW loudly and strongly opposes legislation to make English the “official” language of any state or the United States. You should too.
Reading this, it’s clear that Mr. May doesn’t know what an “official language” is. It means making ballots, criminal justice proceedings, and the post office (among other things) insensible to millions of Americans. He’s picking a fight that doesn’t need to happen with no real end to embrace a right-wing priority too reactionary for even Texas to adopt. Fix our real problems first, then go looking for issues.
So, English as an official language has been a wedge issue for the right for decades here. Just because they have framed this, doesn’t mean it couldn’t be presented in a way that is strength-based and affirmative. There is much to dislike about the Language politics in Quebec, but the Bloc Quebecois passed bill C-101 (the language law). The bloc is most decidedly left leaning and politically progressive. For the record, I see no need for language police or setting up official barriers for workers and citizens. However, just as they recognized that French-Canadians shared a unique linguistic experience, we as a Americans also have a unique linguistic heritage. After all, Noah Webster dropped the ‘u’ from colour and flavour for a reason. Ben Franklin insisted that tounge be changed to ‘toung’ for years and wrote the word that way in his newspapers in Philadelphia in the late 1700’s. We don’t queue up, we line up. I can go on… The point is language rights are recognized in the UNHCR, creating a structure that recognizes majority rule and minority rights dates back to the earliest days of the republic and is completely in step with the social work tradition dating back to Hull house- Sometimes policy moves faster than Social Work speaks.
This nonsense is a truly bad idea, sounding more like Tea Party immigrant-bashing than anything else. It solves nothing, and serves only to further polarize and already hyper-partisan political environment.
I wonder if Mr. May has thought about how he would react if the time ever comes that a majority of voters speak Spanish as their first language. Suppose a misguided proposal like this becomes law. What happens when a Spanish-speaking majority votes to make Spanish the “official” language?
There are a host of problems that are far more important than language demanding the attention of the State Senate. I’d like to know what Mr. May thinks the Commonwealth of MA should do about our transportation system — and how he proposes to pay for it.
I assume Mr. May is referring to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. It’s a much richer story if one understands that the fence-whitewashing episode occurred in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, its predecessor.
…
🙂
Isn’t it what the Internet is for?
And even if I didn’t say so, Edgar is correct that I think encouraging the learning of other languages is a better goal than trying to cement the already-overwhelming dominance of English. I say this as someone who has less-than ordinary ability to learn new languages. I still think it’s valuable.
I was trying to express the wry chuckle I had in response to a ridiculous blunder in an already-ridiculous proposal. One doesn’t need to be a scholar (and shouldn’t need Google) to know that the fence-painting episode came from “Tom Sawyer”. The two books (“The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”) are so completely different in theme, story, and mood that it takes a particular kind of tone-deaf insensitivity to misplace the fence-painting episode — or perhaps the ignorance that comes from reading neither.
The irony of making this awful blunder in the midst of an already offensive proposal about the role of English would be hilarious if it weren’t so chillingly cynical.
After all, the language doesn’t matter if one hasn’t read the book.
… a blunder in an offensive post isn’t ironic, it’s what you’d expect.
😉
Probably shouldn’t blog until after cup of coffee…
Kirth, Sabutai and Tom. If the powers that be do anything, they should be promoting our fluency in other languages.
to which this is the solution?
The point here is not to be regressive. Rather, it is to reflect reality. As It was noted above English is the de-facto language of this country. Recognizing that reality is not offensive, it’s observant, but by the same measure, what if we could take concrete and meaningful steps to assure that ethnic minority groups had real language rights. I am glad that a person from abroad has access to a translator if they are in court or accessing services. They should have that right. No town zoning administrator should be able to reject business signage because its not written in english. (This actually happened around the country but not here in MA to date) All things being equal, I believe the English language is a critical part of our common heritage as Americans. I don’t believe that view is shrouded in bigotry. From the great American song book to literature, in a world increasingly polarized and fractured the English language ties us together as a nation. I believe there is nothing in congruent or inconsistent with recognizing the importance of the English language and my other political views which I consider to be soundly progressive.
I’m sorry, but I really don’t understand just what it is you’re proposing. If it’s some kind of proclamation affirming the central role that English has in our heritage and society, I don’t see the utility of it. Literally everyone already knows that. If you intend to introduce some kind of legislation protecting “language rights,” please define what you mean by those rights, and explain how your legislation would protect them.