English-Only laws in AZ

Tue Sep 21 23:06:04 UTC 2004

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/20040921/94bfccee/attachment.htm>