English-only proposition is an arrogant, arcane idea
It is possible that English-only proponents do not quite realize the cultural arrogance of their position. But no matter how it is justified, the urge to standardize all Americans and particularly at the expense of programs that help sustain the variety of peoples' languages, always has the feel of bigotry. In Arizona, where this week voters will have decided whether or not to back the English-only Proposition 203, the reasoning for destroying bilingual education programs in favor of drastic immersion in English, has been faulty as always. As a result, Native tribes, Chicanos and peoples from a variety of cultures, have united to confront it. Perhaps that is one good result, that people who value their languages have widely recognized each other in a common cause. It is always good to see unity around the defense of diversity rights. Proposition 203 has been drastic and so completely against the sense of diversity of the times it generated a truly intense response. Navajo and Hopi stood side by side on this one, as did all 21 Native tribes in Arizona. At a time when so many Native languages are threatened and even in danger of extinction, what is needed is a supportive, completely open endorsement of the importance of language to culture. Propositions that consider proficiency in English as the only indicator of progress in adapting to American modern life are sadly archaic. All research indicates children need time to adapt to a new language (and environment), and that the continuous recognition of the familiar enhances the child's ability to learn. In many countries of the world (and this was certainly more true of Native nations in earlier times), people might regularly speak two, three or more languages. Why now, in this day and age would any enlightened society seek to limit knowledge? For Chicanos and other Latinos in Arizona, the retention of Spanish among the new generations represents not only a source of pride and self-understanding: the mother language provides as well a communication skill that can prove highly useful, both personally and professionally, throughout a person's life. By denying bilingual education in the case of Spanish, the English-only crowd would destroy a positive skill in children that can be nurtured while the child also expands and perfects fluency in English. The sacredness of speaking one's own language was a major topic in the discussion of Proposition 203, with many calling attention to the perception that "language is culture" and that all languages are gifts of the Creator. In the case of Indigenous languages, the cultural expression is always descriptive, with poetic and, often, deep ecological perception. There is a growing recognition of the special beauty and intellectual power found in Native languages. A protest of more than 1,000 American Indian and Chicano people saw speakers from many fields address the proposition. Wayne Taylor, Hopi chairman, put it well. The English-only proposition, he said, "strikes to the heart of who we are." Taylor recalled for the crowd the times when Indian people were punished for speaking their languages. Never again should American Indians allow ill-considered political movements to destroy our languages and cultures. The sincere eloquence of many of the speakers was in itself evidence of the importance Native people place in our ancestral languages. Former Navajo president Peterson Zah: "How arrogant to suggest that one language is better than another. It is a sacred thing. It is a gift we get from the Great Spirit. Only the Great Spirit can take it away." Most tellingly, Navajo Code Talkers took the stage to oppose the proposition. Recalling the crucial contribution to the winning of the war against Japan made by his people's fluency in their own Navajo language, Navajo Code Talker Dan Akee said, "A lot of lives have been saved through this language." Proposing to address some imagined division supposedly created by a diversity of languages being supported and taught in our educational systems, the English-only initiatives are clearly a great cause of division themselves. As presented, they do not strive to simply add to the school systems' curricula, they are intended to actually eliminate current bilingual programs that work and which often are exemplary in bringing Native language speakers, respected elders and other culture-bearing people into the classroom. The ideological bent of the English-only movement is signaled in fact by its ardent effort to kill bilingualism, which has become a favorite punching bag for the pseudo bigot pundits. Whether or not Proposition 203 is passed in Arizona by the time this edition is published, we intend to maintain a strong vigil in defense of American Indian languages everywhere. It is simply that important an issue. |