English-Only laws in AZ

Wed Sep 22 14:51:18 UTC 2004

I see. It's a public information issue. Too bad we can't market it like that funny Mozart Music Intelligence-enhancing program. I do wonder, though, if anyone on this list is connected with PBS? We are a PBS station here, but we don't produce much. WGBH in Boston is a Big Producer, and they have the right demographic to make something like this happen. It would be a small start, but if it were a PBS issue, it would get attention, and then perhaps it would open some of the right kind of debate. 

It occurs to me to note that most of the bi- and multi-lingual discussions occur about natural languages. The issues are the same in the computer languages area. Most people don't know this, but when technology changed from the linear, procedural languages like COBOL and Fortran, millions of programmers had to find another profession because they couldn't grok the new paradigm. 

Multi-linguality skills also seep into multi-disciplinary issues, because each discipline has its own language. . . "object" in law is NOT the same as "object" in computer science. In law, "object" is either a noun or a verb. In CS, it is an entity, with its own properties, methods and procedures. It is sharable, includable, and modifiable. 

The issues are huge. Now if we just had somebody who sat on one of the PBS boards. . . . ? 

Mia

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Susan Penfield 
  To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:24 AM
  Subject: Re: English-Only laws in AZ

  Mia,
  You are right. However, many people (like James Crawford, Richard Ruiz, and others) have tried to do this. The problem seems to be the matter of getting it out to the general public even though numerous articles,, citing the cognitive value of being multilingual, have been published in newspapers/magazines aimed at non-academic audiences. Still, somehow it never gets for-fronted when politics becomes involved. 
  Susan
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: MiaKalish - LFP 
    To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU 
    Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:12 AM
    Subject: Re: English-Only laws in AZ

    There is a lot of Psychology research that shows that people who master more than one language are much "smarter", to use a short-cut, than monolingual people. This research would make a stunning case if people assembled it, and I think would be much more effective than the ideological arguments people use in this type of discussion. 

    Mia

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Matthew Ward 
      To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU 
      Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 5:06 PM
      Subject: Re: English-Only laws in AZ

      One of the depressing things about the AZ situation, for me, is that while there are still many countries with repressive laws that affect minority languages, most countries appear to be moving in a direction of more and more tolerance.  It really is against a worldwide trend.  Even CHINA is liberalizing its language policies to some extent--why are we falling for this stupidity, when time is so very short?  

      It also really makes me very angry that that English-Only movement has used all of this rhetoric about helping immigrant kids learn English and used it against indigenous American languages.  It's not that I support English-Only in ANY form, but I do feel quite certain that when most Americans vote for these laws, they don't intend to vote against Native American languages.  It's very, very devious and evil.  If I understand Prop. 203 properly, I think that it needs a 75% vote to significantly alter it.  The only real hope is that lawsuits and the courts will block it.  I believe that's what happened in Alaska:  Native groups challenged the English-only law (another one of those laws by Unz and his gang of bullies) and it's stuck in court as a result.  I remember reading an article in which some idiot representative of the English-only movement in Alaska said something like "We're not against preservation of Native languages, but they have to be practical.  They couldn't use them if they go to Germany."  Well, hell!  You could condemn some of the largest languages on earth on that particular grounds.  

      We all need to get a lot more politically savvy.  I've found that people really respond to certain kinds of rhetoric--you can say things like "Prop. 203 reduces Navajo, an American language that helped win WWII, to the status of a foreign language."  People really turn their heads when they hear statements like that.  Most Americans instinctively recognize the rightness of preserving indigenous languages, but when they think that they are voting for "English for the children," then most never even think about indigenous languages.  I'm not a nationalist, but we do need to point out strongly that were are preserving our own American culture here.  The other side is brilliant at appealing to people's emotions--we need to do the same thing.  We are, after all, on the right side of this issue.  

      Susan Penfield wrote:

All,
I'm sure this is a pattern affecting endangered languages in many corners of the
world. Thanks for this perspective on the Tucson and Canadian situations. For
an indepth discussion of Prop. 203 in Arizona, see this page on James
Crawford's Language Policy website:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/az-unz.htm

It contains a complete explanation of the origin of Prop.203 (spinning out of
California...) and the current status of this legislation.
The tenor of 'English-only' arguments, although aimed at the Mexican-American
population, is clearly a threat to anyone working on indigenous language
revitalization and we should all be aware of the hidden agendas in this type of
language policy.

Best,
Susan

Quoting Rolland Nadjiwon <mikinakn at SHAW.CA>:

  Interesting Anecdote:

Proposition  203, English only, is not a recent proposition.  My wife and I
and our children were living in Tucson at the time it more of an issue.
There was a major opposition to it by the Mexican Americans. One of the
outspoken families was the Rhonstadt family, an old family with signatures
on Spanish/ American documentation predating Texas/New
Mexico/Arizona/California statehood. The protests resulted in a response of
the nature that the proposition would not be rescinded but it would not be
enforced. It appeared, at the time, many people did not realize the extent
of the Mexican American remaining in the southwest even to this day and had
intended the legislation to be used against the Dene and other native Tribes
in Arizona. The Mexican American response seemed to be a total surprise to
White rural populations who strongly supported it. Perhaps that is part of
the reason why you find 203 is "poorly crafted and even more poorly
implemented...."

The only reason I am aware of this legislation, is because of the two
official language legislation in Canada for French and English. That
Canadian decision around the same time as Prop 203 was 'very' controversial
in Canada.

Here in the city where we live, we had moved to Tucson for my wife to do her
Grad work at UofA, the mayor, a somewhat colourful/notorious personality,
rescinded the legislation and declared Sault Ste. Marie, ON. as an English
only city. Both my wife and I were unaware of the Mayor's actions. However,
people who knew where relocated from were saying, "Hey, you come from that
English only city up in Canada."
"No. Canada has two official languages by Federal Legislation: English and
French."
"Oh no. Your mayor just declared your city an English only city."

Of course it didn't work. I could never figure why he did that considering
he is Italian and, probably, the largest language group in Sault Ste. Marie
outside of English, as Hispanic is in Arizona.

However, our Native Language programs are taking a beating here in Canada
also because of official language legislation where we are neither included
or excluded.

-------
wahjeh
rolland nadjiwon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Penfield" <sdp at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU>
To: <ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: English-Only laws in AZ

    Matthew,
Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention. It is particularly
troubling since, in the beginning of the process, Native people were
assured, repeatedly, that they would not be included in the application of
this
poorly crafted and even more poorly implemented (my opinion, put mildly)
proposition.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Ward" <mward at LUNA.CC.NM.US>
To: <ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject: English-Only laws in AZ

      Just wanted to mention that I've been in touch with ACLU Arizona about
the issue of Prop. 203, the English-only law, affecting Native immersion
programs.  It does indeed seem that Window Rock Public Schools may risk
losing funding by continuing their immersion programs, and the issue may
have to go to court.

We all need to be vigilant in letting people know that these
English-only laws do not just apply to immigrants--they also endanger
efforts to preserve Native American languages as well.  I suspect that
if Azizona voters had understood the effect of this law, they wouldn't
have voted for it in the first place.

Matthew Ward

Susan D. Penfield, Ph.D.
Department of English
   The Writing Program
   Second Language Acquisition and Teaching Ph.D. Program (affiliate faculty)
   Indigenous Languages and Technology
Southwest Center, Research Associate in Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20040922/3a26d2bc/attachment.htm>