Hispanics in Naples Cite Lack of Spanish Information About Wilma
Southeast News • November 2, 2005
Hispanics in areas of Florida hit by Hurricane Wilma report a lack of directions and information in Spanish to assist them in preparing for a hurricane, telling them what to do and where to go ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: More Truth
Posted On: November 15, 2005, 9:31 am CST
Posted By: Truth
Comment:
Nothing missed by this writer. But you missed it by a mile. This article had a very narrow focus. It was not about your own wider agenda regarding English as an official language (often referred to as "English only"). This article was strictly about problems obtaining information in Spanish to help prepare for the hurricane. Any and every government has a responsibility to help protect ALL of its residents when it responds to a public emergency crisis, such as a hurricane. If there are a significant amount of recent immigrants that use a different language, it's only common sense that you can more effectively communicate in that language. Even the proposed House bill (H.R. 997) recognizes this and it does not apply toâââ‰â¬Â"actions or documents that protect the public health and safety."
Now if you want debate your own agenda,here goes. Speaking another language is easy, but it makes you only partially proficient. To really be proficient in any language, you must be able to read, comprehend and write, as well as speak and learn a vocabulary. In general, people are usually most proficient in their primary language, the one they grew up speaking. It takes an average American about 12 years to be considered somewhat English proficient at a high school level. However, their actual proficiency and comprehension level is debatably lower. This is quite evident from many of the previously posted comments.
And what's wrong with learning another language? It serves to further your education and broadens your opportunities. At least one year of a foreign language was required when I attended high school. And if you live in North America, the language most likely to be practical in its application is Spanish. Criticizing it only betrays one's ignorance. Consider this irony - despite its increasing diversity, the United States remains an underdeveloped country when it comes to language skills. Immigrants are importing other tongues at record rates. Yet the vast majority of native-born Americans remain stubbornly monolingual. Our ignorance of other languages and cultures handicaps us in dealing with the rest of the world. U.S. trade, diplomacy, and national security all suffer. If you travel around the world, you will find most educated people are speak at least two languages.
If you wish to debate the issue of English as an official language, you need to bring more to the table than churlish name calling (Liberal). It only lowers the intellectual level of the debate. Your use of the Latin term (lingua franca) is pretentious and fails to bring any substance. It's just a waste of time if you are unable to introduce any facts to substantiate your statements. You offer a second-hand "telling" comment (someone said!) that you admit you don't know if it's true or not. What is truly sad are those people who agree with you, when all you offer are simplistic claims with no evidence to support your statements. You make unsupported claims about ethnic separatism and immigrants' disinclination to learn English unless forced to do so.
Here's some history and FACTS to consider before spouting off ill-informed, uninformed knee jerk reactions and opinions. For more than 200 years, Americans have gotten by without declaring English as our official language. Why does English suddenly need "legal protection" in a federal Act? English Only advocates respond:
âââ¬Ã¢ Language diversity is a recent phenomenon in the United States, which the Founders never had to cope with.
âââ¬Ã¢ Native-language accommodations discourage immigrants from learning English.
âââ¬Ã¢ Plenty of other countries have designated official languages to manage diversity. Why not the U.S.A.?
Let's examine the factual basis of these claims. First, some history. Congress never even considered declaring English the nation's official language until 1981, when a constitutional Amendment was introduced by the late Senator S. I. Hayakawa. The only previous official-language legislation dates back to 1923: a bill designating "American" the national tongue. The measure died in Congress without coming to a vote.
American English has never been in jeopardy. Americans have traditionally resisted language legislation, since 1780, when John Adams proposed to establish an official Language Academy. It was rejected by the Continental Congress as an improper role for government and a threat to individual liberties. A century later President Teddy Roosevelt's attempt to "reform" English spelling met a similar fate. There was no English proficiency requirement to become naturalized as a U.S. citizen until 1906 âââ‰â¬Å the first major language restriction to be enacted at the federal level. On the other hand, the Continental Congress saw nothing wrong with printing its Journals and other official documents in German and in French. No patriotic objections were raised against accommodating these politically significant minorities. Before World War I, bilingual education was common in areas where non-anglo groups enjoyed political clout. During the 19th century, state laws, constitutions, and legislative proceedings appeared in languages as diverse as Welsh, Czech, Norwegian, Spanish, French, and German.
At other times, Americans have imposed restrictive language policies. In 1897, Pennsylvania made English proficiency a condition of employment in the coal fields, a none-too-subtle way to exclude Italians and Slavs. Security fears during the World War I era led to unprecedented bans on public use of the German language âââ‰â¬Å in schools, on the street, during religious services, and even on the telephone.
Turn-of-the-century Jews, Italians, and Slavs also encountered such invidious comparisons âââ‰â¬Å in 1911 a federal Immigration Commission accused them of failing to learn English as rapidly as the Germans, Irish, and Scandinavians who came before them. In fact, immigrants' rates of Anglicization have increased throughout U.S. history. Today they are higher than ever before.
In the 1890 census there were 4.5 times as many non-English speakers, proportionally speaking, than in the 1990 census. A century ago there were sizable enclaves in the Southwest, Louisiana, the upper Midwest, and New England, where colonial, immigrant, and indigenous languages predominated âââ‰â¬Å far larger than their counterparts today. The rate of linguistic assimilation is clearly accelerating, even in the relatively brief span of the 1980s.
Factual disputes are a feature of every policy debate. But they loom especially large in the conflict over English Only. Language diversity is hardly a new issue in U.S. history, it is a new issue to most living Americans. There is a vacuum of reliable information. This has created an environment in which ethnic stereotypes, romantic myths, and folk wisdom can flourish. Such a vacuum favors those who advance simplistic claims. For example:
âââ¬Ã¢ that English has been the "common bond" of American nationhood; that earlier immigrants were quick to learn English ;
âââ¬Ã¢ that bilingual accommodations discourage today's Hispanics and Asians from doing so; that diversity inevitably causes dissension;
âââ¬Ã¢ that English Only restrictions will foster unity.
Journalists have not helped the situation. Often they have gobbled up the misrepresentations, both large and small, served up by English Only groups propagated by the media. Once ingested into the media, such errors are recycled until they become part of the conventional wisdom.
So it is impossible to characterize any American "tradition" on the official language question. Our responses to diversity have ranged from accommodation to tolerance to discrimination to repression, usually determined by factors that have little to do with language. These have included a minority group's race, religion, numbers, political clout, and cultural distinctiveness, as well as the majority group's feelings of prosperity, stability, or paranoia.
One thing can be said with certainty: Language diversity has always been with us. In the 1790 census, German Americans accounted for 8.6 percent of the population âââ‰â¬Å a proportion comparable to that of Hispanic Americans, 9.0 percent, exactly two centuries later. Proportionally speaking, the language-minority population was larger at the turn of the 20th century, when immigration reached its highest levels in U.S. history, than at the turn of the 21st. These groups gradually became Anglicized âââ‰â¬Å not through legislation, but through social changes due to industrialization, migration, road-building, electrification, mass media, and the passing of isolated rural life. There is no evidence that bilingual accommodations slow down English acquisition. Absolutely none has been marshaled by English Only advocates âââ‰â¬Å only unsupported claims about ethnic separatism and immigrants' disinclination to learn English unless forced to do so.
Demographic research shows that now, more than ever, language patterns in America are making a massive shift to English that continues. This trend has been somewhat masked by rising immigration levels over the past two decades. It is not surprising that many Americans have trouble grasping the paradox: While the number of minority language speakers is increasing, so is the rate of linguistic assimilation. All available evidence suggests that today's newcomers are learning English âââ‰â¬Å and losing their native tongues âââ‰â¬Å more rapidly than ever before. English was far more "threatened" in earlier times; yet it survived quite nicely without official status. This is not to say the United States should have no language policy. Quite the contrary. Now more than ever we need a comprehensive plan for managing language resources and ensuring language rights. But such a policy involves much more than simply designating an official language.
Subject: More Truth
Now if you want debate your own agenda,here goes. Speaking another language is easy, but it makes you only partially proficient. To really be proficient in any language, you must be able to read, comprehend and write, as well as speak and learn a vocabulary. In general, people are usually most proficient in their primary language, the one they grew up speaking. It takes an average American about 12 years to be considered somewhat English proficient at a high school level. However, their actual proficiency and comprehension level is debatably lower. This is quite evident from many of the previously posted comments.
And what's wrong with learning another language? It serves to further your education and broadens your opportunities. At least one year of a foreign language was required when I attended high school. And if you live in North America, the language most likely to be practical in its application is Spanish. Criticizing it only betrays one's ignorance. Consider this irony - despite its increasing diversity, the United States remains an underdeveloped country when it comes to language skills. Immigrants are importing other tongues at record rates. Yet the vast majority of native-born Americans remain stubbornly monolingual. Our ignorance of other languages and cultures handicaps us in dealing with the rest of the world. U.S. trade, diplomacy, and national security all suffer. If you travel around the world, you will find most educated people are speak at least two languages.
If you wish to debate the issue of English as an official language, you need to bring more to the table than churlish name calling (Liberal). It only lowers the intellectual level of the debate. Your use of the Latin term (lingua franca) is pretentious and fails to bring any substance. It's just a waste of time if you are unable to introduce any facts to substantiate your statements. You offer a second-hand "telling" comment (someone said!) that you admit you don't know if it's true or not. What is truly sad are those people who agree with you, when all you offer are simplistic claims with no evidence to support your statements. You make unsupported claims about ethnic separatism and immigrants' disinclination to learn English unless forced to do so.
Here's some history and FACTS to consider before spouting off ill-informed, uninformed knee jerk reactions and opinions. For more than 200 years, Americans have gotten by without declaring English as our official language. Why does English suddenly need "legal protection" in a federal Act? English Only advocates respond:
âââ¬Ã¢ Language diversity is a recent phenomenon in the United States, which the Founders never had to cope with.
âââ¬Ã¢ Native-language accommodations discourage immigrants from learning English.
âââ¬Ã¢ Plenty of other countries have designated official languages to manage diversity. Why not the U.S.A.?
Let's examine the factual basis of these claims. First, some history. Congress never even considered declaring English the nation's official language until 1981, when a constitutional Amendment was introduced by the late Senator S. I. Hayakawa. The only previous official-language legislation dates back to 1923: a bill designating "American" the national tongue. The measure died in Congress without coming to a vote.
American English has never been in jeopardy. Americans have traditionally resisted language legislation, since 1780, when John Adams proposed to establish an official Language Academy. It was rejected by the Continental Congress as an improper role for government and a threat to individual liberties. A century later President Teddy Roosevelt's attempt to "reform" English spelling met a similar fate. There was no English proficiency requirement to become naturalized as a U.S. citizen until 1906 âââ‰â¬Å the first major language restriction to be enacted at the federal level. On the other hand, the Continental Congress saw nothing wrong with printing its Journals and other official documents in German and in French. No patriotic objections were raised against accommodating these politically significant minorities. Before World War I, bilingual education was common in areas where non-anglo groups enjoyed political clout. During the 19th century, state laws, constitutions, and legislative proceedings appeared in languages as diverse as Welsh, Czech, Norwegian, Spanish, French, and German.
At other times, Americans have imposed restrictive language policies. In 1897, Pennsylvania made English proficiency a condition of employment in the coal fields, a none-too-subtle way to exclude Italians and Slavs. Security fears during the World War I era led to unprecedented bans on public use of the German language âââ‰â¬Å in schools, on the street, during religious services, and even on the telephone.
Turn-of-the-century Jews, Italians, and Slavs also encountered such invidious comparisons âââ‰â¬Å in 1911 a federal Immigration Commission accused them of failing to learn English as rapidly as the Germans, Irish, and Scandinavians who came before them. In fact, immigrants' rates of Anglicization have increased throughout U.S. history. Today they are higher than ever before.
In the 1890 census there were 4.5 times as many non-English speakers, proportionally speaking, than in the 1990 census. A century ago there were sizable enclaves in the Southwest, Louisiana, the upper Midwest, and New England, where colonial, immigrant, and indigenous languages predominated âââ‰â¬Å far larger than their counterparts today. The rate of linguistic assimilation is clearly accelerating, even in the relatively brief span of the 1980s.
Factual disputes are a feature of every policy debate. But they loom especially large in the conflict over English Only. Language diversity is hardly a new issue in U.S. history, it is a new issue to most living Americans. There is a vacuum of reliable information. This has created an environment in which ethnic stereotypes, romantic myths, and folk wisdom can flourish. Such a vacuum favors those who advance simplistic claims. For example:
âââ¬Ã¢ that English has been the "common bond" of American nationhood; that earlier immigrants were quick to learn English ;
âââ¬Ã¢ that bilingual accommodations discourage today's Hispanics and Asians from doing so; that diversity inevitably causes dissension;
âââ¬Ã¢ that English Only restrictions will foster unity.
Journalists have not helped the situation. Often they have gobbled up the misrepresentations, both large and small, served up by English Only groups propagated by the media. Once ingested into the media, such errors are recycled until they become part of the conventional wisdom.
So it is impossible to characterize any American "tradition" on the official language question. Our responses to diversity have ranged from accommodation to tolerance to discrimination to repression, usually determined by factors that have little to do with language. These have included a minority group's race, religion, numbers, political clout, and cultural distinctiveness, as well as the majority group's feelings of prosperity, stability, or paranoia.
One thing can be said with certainty: Language diversity has always been with us. In the 1790 census, German Americans accounted for 8.6 percent of the population âââ‰â¬Å a proportion comparable to that of Hispanic Americans, 9.0 percent, exactly two centuries later. Proportionally speaking, the language-minority population was larger at the turn of the 20th century, when immigration reached its highest levels in U.S. history, than at the turn of the 21st. These groups gradually became Anglicized âââ‰â¬Å not through legislation, but through social changes due to industrialization, migration, road-building, electrification, mass media, and the passing of isolated rural life. There is no evidence that bilingual accommodations slow down English acquisition. Absolutely none has been marshaled by English Only advocates âââ‰â¬Å only unsupported claims about ethnic separatism and immigrants' disinclination to learn English unless forced to do so.
Demographic research shows that now, more than ever, language patterns in America are making a massive shift to English that continues. This trend has been somewhat masked by rising immigration levels over the past two decades. It is not surprising that many Americans have trouble grasping the paradox: While the number of minority language speakers is increasing, so is the rate of linguistic assimilation. All available evidence suggests that today's newcomers are learning English âââ‰â¬Å and losing their native tongues âââ‰â¬Å more rapidly than ever before. English was far more "threatened" in earlier times; yet it survived quite nicely without official status. This is not to say the United States should have no language policy. Quite the contrary. Now more than ever we need a comprehensive plan for managing language resources and ensuring language rights. But such a policy involves much more than simply designating an official language.