Mary Elizabeth Lowe
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
Topic: The United States should not descend into further exclusion or journey down the path of unconstitutional decisions by adopting an official language; furthermore, the United States should continue offering bilingual ballots in order to ensure that fundamental rights are sustained and to strengthen this country.
Zuckerman, Michael A., "Constitutional Clash: When English-Only Meets Voting
Rights" (2009). Cornell Law School Working Papers. Paper 62.
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/62
This source provides an informative overview of the English Only Movement in addition to facts and stories concerning the voting issue and cites other dilemmas including the Constitutional vulnerability of a purposed English Only Movement. As evidence that English Only is unconstitutional, it brings into consideration the 14th amendment and states that language is the new proxy for race. One extremely compelling quote for both bilingual ballots and against English Only, is stated by the educated Zuckerman as he says, “Furthermore, the fact of a state applying its English-only policies to voter registration is independently suspect because the state is affecting voting rights, which are fundamental, and have historically been used as a tool for discrimination.” Another direct cite from this paper is the quotation from the fifteenth amendment. It guarantees that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” This is another solid argument in favor of bilingual ballots and against a national language. I would use this, and the many other facts and stories in this article to my paper by bringing to light the fact that if this nation deemed English it’s national language, it would have to uphold this law in all areas. This would include the removal of bilingual ballots and that would take away many American citizens’ right to vote, which is a constitutional right.
Crawford, James. "The Question of Minority Language Rights." Language Loyalties A
Source Book on the Official English Controversy. New York: University Of
Chicago, 1992. Print.
This article begins with many provoking questions such as, “What would be the legal impact of an English Language Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?” and “Does it seek primarily to make a symbolic statement about the role of English as our common language or to protect the dominant status of English by outlawing all (or all but a few) public uses of other tongues?” These questions are followed by both the pros and cons of English Only and declares that both sides are valid but will certainly have a profound effect on all speakers of this nation. As the chapter progresses he says, “voting in anything other than the national tongue offends the civic assumptions of many Americans.” This is primarily due to our history for the United States is indeed a nation of immigrants.
He also cites the 1987 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which had “prohibited arbitrary language policies on the job – that is, English-only rules that have no demonstrated business necessity – as a form of national-origin discrimination.” I will use parts of this chapter to further develop the idea that the United States is a nation of immigrants and to suddenly state that English must be the official language encroaches upon the very history of our “toss salad” nation.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Annotated Bibliographies
Jennifer Conley
Ms. Hughes
20 November 2009
Thesis Statement:
Many citizens would argue that English should be our official language, but what about those citizens who practice their culture every day? Should these citizens be penalized for their practices in the way they speak or understand language or should we also utilize their abilities in our everyday life too?
“A Nation Divided: The Consequences of Bilingual Ballots.” ProEnglish: Repealing Bilingual Ballots. 4 Nov. 2009 http://www.proenglish.org/issues/ballots/fivereasons.html.
This is a pro-English article that discusses their opinion upon bilingual ballots. In this article five main points are brought to attention. The first point talks about the justification and election materials. Their response is that citizens are suppose to know English to become citizens, so why not keep practicing English as the official language. The second reason is that the requirements of bilingual ballots are arbitrary and wasteful. Citizens believe that the requirements of making ballots in another language are unnecessary when facts show a majority of citizens can speak English. Third, the local governments have to make the ballots and they are unfunded and mandatory. In their defense, the assistance amendment to the Voting Rights’ Act is provided. Fourthly, the likelihood of errors and vote fraud are increased. This reason is provided with the statistics of previous elections and how the vote was swayed to the poll workers bias opinion. The last point is simply that bilingual ballots are a growing burden. Citizens think that too much money is being spent to provide the materials and help needed, especially when the help provided has ended up causing confusion at the polls. Since my argument is not set to one side or the other, some of these points will be argued against while others will help prove my reasoning.
"Bilingual Ballot Laws." ProEnglish: The English Language Advocates. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. http://www.proenglish.org/issues/ballots/overview.htm.
This web page shows an overview of the Bilingual Ballot Provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It states that, “The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 was originally enacted to prohibit state and local governments from denying or abridging the right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," a right guaranteed by the 15th Amendment.” At the time it was enacted to protect the right of voting for black Americans. “But in 1975 Congress greatly expanded the Voting Rights Act's original intent by inserting special protections for "language minorities.” By doing this Congress made voting available to any individual who was an American citizen. The only set back with this act is that it was passed as a temporary adjustment and not officially a concrete adjustment. Since this is temporary Congress has renewed this act twice in 1982 and then again in 1992. If this bill was not renewed in 2007 then it will have expired. If amendment made it fair for citizens to vote with bilingual ballots and it keeps getting renewed by Congress, why not just make it official? Voting is a right that every American citizen should be able to practice. Limiting voting to citizens who speak English very well does not make it fair. This is unjust to what this country was founded on and keeps America from being united.
Ms. Hughes
20 November 2009
Thesis Statement:
Many citizens would argue that English should be our official language, but what about those citizens who practice their culture every day? Should these citizens be penalized for their practices in the way they speak or understand language or should we also utilize their abilities in our everyday life too?
“A Nation Divided: The Consequences of Bilingual Ballots.” ProEnglish: Repealing Bilingual Ballots. 4 Nov. 2009 http://www.proenglish.org/issues/ballots/fivereasons.html.
This is a pro-English article that discusses their opinion upon bilingual ballots. In this article five main points are brought to attention. The first point talks about the justification and election materials. Their response is that citizens are suppose to know English to become citizens, so why not keep practicing English as the official language. The second reason is that the requirements of bilingual ballots are arbitrary and wasteful. Citizens believe that the requirements of making ballots in another language are unnecessary when facts show a majority of citizens can speak English. Third, the local governments have to make the ballots and they are unfunded and mandatory. In their defense, the assistance amendment to the Voting Rights’ Act is provided. Fourthly, the likelihood of errors and vote fraud are increased. This reason is provided with the statistics of previous elections and how the vote was swayed to the poll workers bias opinion. The last point is simply that bilingual ballots are a growing burden. Citizens think that too much money is being spent to provide the materials and help needed, especially when the help provided has ended up causing confusion at the polls. Since my argument is not set to one side or the other, some of these points will be argued against while others will help prove my reasoning.
"Bilingual Ballot Laws." ProEnglish: The English Language Advocates. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. http://www.proenglish.org/issues/ballots/overview.htm.
This web page shows an overview of the Bilingual Ballot Provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It states that, “The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 was originally enacted to prohibit state and local governments from denying or abridging the right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," a right guaranteed by the 15th Amendment.” At the time it was enacted to protect the right of voting for black Americans. “But in 1975 Congress greatly expanded the Voting Rights Act's original intent by inserting special protections for "language minorities.” By doing this Congress made voting available to any individual who was an American citizen. The only set back with this act is that it was passed as a temporary adjustment and not officially a concrete adjustment. Since this is temporary Congress has renewed this act twice in 1982 and then again in 1992. If this bill was not renewed in 2007 then it will have expired. If amendment made it fair for citizens to vote with bilingual ballots and it keeps getting renewed by Congress, why not just make it official? Voting is a right that every American citizen should be able to practice. Limiting voting to citizens who speak English very well does not make it fair. This is unjust to what this country was founded on and keeps America from being united.
Annotated Bibliography
Rebekah Medford
Topic: Should the US offer bilingual ballots?
ACLU of Florida. "English Only." ACLUFL.org. May 2007. Web. 20 Nov. 2009http://www.aclufl.org/take_action/download_resources/info_papers/6.cfm
In the a article by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida over the "English Only" debate, the ACLU states its reasonings behind why they oppose the "English Only" laws. They believe the laws take away the rights of individuals as well as create false stereotypes of immigrants or people speaking different languages. The material in the article is very informational, focusing not just on now but also where the idea of "English Only" derivied and just how long its been around. Viewing the counterargument, several points are brought up on why some people believe, or have believed in the past, that "English Only" would help. Following their paragraphs about the history of "English Only," ACLU has a question and answer portion. These question and answers allow the ACLU to get their views on the "English Only" debates across, focusing on topics such as: who is affected; what the consequences are; and the false ideas behind it. There are several points I would like to use from this article. Though it is against "English Only" I would liketo use the history it provides where the idea derives from in my counterargument. Using John Adams idea and words, would help me show how people believe it to be very unifying at that time. I agree that if at that time, they had made Englsih the national language, I would have been unifying. Now it would not be. Too many cultures have come here, making English Only laws now would only seperate cultures amd people in America. If English was already the National Language, then getting rid of billingual ballots would be okay but since it is not, and we are a free country, you cannot take away peoples' rights.
The Washing Post Company. " Yes on Bilingual Ballots: Encourage non-English speakers to make informed choices." The Washington Post. 10 Jul. 2006. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900553.html
This Washington Post article is pro view on Bilingual Ballots. In their article they discuss the Voting Rights Act as well as doing a deeper study of the argument. They take arguments that could be made against bilingual ballots, like: one already has to know English to take the citizenship test. The Washington Post then rebutes the arguments and states why they are not strong enough, or accurate enough to prove the counterargument. Other issues covered in the article are cost,and voting particpation. I will be able to use The Washington Post's answers towards the debate of the citizenship english to prove that this is not the same level of required when reading a ballot.
Topic: Should the US offer bilingual ballots?
ACLU of Florida. "English Only." ACLUFL.org. May 2007. Web. 20 Nov. 2009http://www.aclufl.org/take_action/download_resources/info_papers/6.cfm
In the a article by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida over the "English Only" debate, the ACLU states its reasonings behind why they oppose the "English Only" laws. They believe the laws take away the rights of individuals as well as create false stereotypes of immigrants or people speaking different languages. The material in the article is very informational, focusing not just on now but also where the idea of "English Only" derivied and just how long its been around. Viewing the counterargument, several points are brought up on why some people believe, or have believed in the past, that "English Only" would help. Following their paragraphs about the history of "English Only," ACLU has a question and answer portion. These question and answers allow the ACLU to get their views on the "English Only" debates across, focusing on topics such as: who is affected; what the consequences are; and the false ideas behind it. There are several points I would like to use from this article. Though it is against "English Only" I would liketo use the history it provides where the idea derives from in my counterargument. Using John Adams idea and words, would help me show how people believe it to be very unifying at that time. I agree that if at that time, they had made Englsih the national language, I would have been unifying. Now it would not be. Too many cultures have come here, making English Only laws now would only seperate cultures amd people in America. If English was already the National Language, then getting rid of billingual ballots would be okay but since it is not, and we are a free country, you cannot take away peoples' rights.
The Washing Post Company. " Yes on Bilingual Ballots: Encourage non-English speakers to make informed choices." The Washington Post. 10 Jul. 2006. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900553.html
This Washington Post article is pro view on Bilingual Ballots. In their article they discuss the Voting Rights Act as well as doing a deeper study of the argument. They take arguments that could be made against bilingual ballots, like: one already has to know English to take the citizenship test. The Washington Post then rebutes the arguments and states why they are not strong enough, or accurate enough to prove the counterargument. Other issues covered in the article are cost,and voting particpation. I will be able to use The Washington Post's answers towards the debate of the citizenship english to prove that this is not the same level of required when reading a ballot.
Steven Holland
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Topic: The Ebonics Controversy
Oubré, Alondra. “Black English Vernacular (Ebonics) and Educability A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Language, Cognition, and Schooling” 1997
http://www.aawc.com/ebonicsarticle.html
Dr. Oubré states that one of the main causes of scholastic shortcomings of African American youth was the Oakland Public Unified School Board's attention to Ebonics. Dr. Oubré states that Ebonics brings down those who use it by saying, “The sad reality is that Blacks' poor performance in school only further reinforces for many Americans stereotypes of the intellectual inferiority of Black Africans” and “African American students who speak traditional Black dialects of the English language are less apt to do well in school because they generally cannot comprehend standard English.” Dr. Oubré obviously thinks that Ebonics is the cause of the academic downfall of many African Americans. Dr. Oubré also states that ”Black Americans earn IQ scores averaging 85 points compared to scores of about 100 for Euro-Americans and about 106 for Asian Americans of East Asian descent. IQ scores may not be an absolute or totally accurate measure of innate intelligence. But certainly they do say something about a person's cognitive ability to successfully function in American society,” which would suggest that the use of Ebonics could potentially bring down Black Americans’ intelligence. I plan to use this article to introduce the topic and to back it up with statistics. The article shows how Ebonics has caused controversy over African American education.
Rickford, John R. "The Ebonics controversy in my backyard:A sociolinguist's experiences and reflections" 1999.
http://www.stanford.edu/~rickford/papers/EbonicsInMyBackyard.html
This article basically explains the topic of the Oakland School Board Ebonics controversy. John Rickford explains what happened during the 1996 Ebonics controversy and provides background information about the controversy. I plan to use this article to provide information that is directly linked to the Oakland School Board Ebonics Controversy.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Topic: The Ebonics Controversy
Oubré, Alondra. “Black English Vernacular (Ebonics) and Educability A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Language, Cognition, and Schooling” 1997
http://www.aawc.com/ebonicsarticle.html
Dr. Oubré states that one of the main causes of scholastic shortcomings of African American youth was the Oakland Public Unified School Board's attention to Ebonics. Dr. Oubré states that Ebonics brings down those who use it by saying, “The sad reality is that Blacks' poor performance in school only further reinforces for many Americans stereotypes of the intellectual inferiority of Black Africans” and “African American students who speak traditional Black dialects of the English language are less apt to do well in school because they generally cannot comprehend standard English.” Dr. Oubré obviously thinks that Ebonics is the cause of the academic downfall of many African Americans. Dr. Oubré also states that ”Black Americans earn IQ scores averaging 85 points compared to scores of about 100 for Euro-Americans and about 106 for Asian Americans of East Asian descent. IQ scores may not be an absolute or totally accurate measure of innate intelligence. But certainly they do say something about a person's cognitive ability to successfully function in American society,” which would suggest that the use of Ebonics could potentially bring down Black Americans’ intelligence. I plan to use this article to introduce the topic and to back it up with statistics. The article shows how Ebonics has caused controversy over African American education.
Rickford, John R. "The Ebonics controversy in my backyard:A sociolinguist's experiences and reflections" 1999.
http://www.stanford.edu/~rickford/papers/EbonicsInMyBackyard.html
This article basically explains the topic of the Oakland School Board Ebonics controversy. John Rickford explains what happened during the 1996 Ebonics controversy and provides background information about the controversy. I plan to use this article to provide information that is directly linked to the Oakland School Board Ebonics Controversy.
Bilingual Ballots
Tyler Gunnin
Dr. Hughes
English 1101
11/20/09
Topic: Why we should discard all bilingual ballots
1. Blum, Edward. "A Nation Divided: The Consequences of Bilingual Ballots". 5 Reasons to Oppose Bilingual Ballots. 2006.
Edward Blum summarizes the debate of discarding bilingual ballots into five key points in this article. The five major ideas in the writing are: There is no justification for bilingual ballots and election materials, bilingual ballot requirements are arbitrary and wasteful, bilingual ballots are an un-funded mandate on local governments, bilingual ballots increase the the likelihood of errors and voter fraud, and bilingual ballots are a growing burden. A few key points that are made in this article are: since 1907 the United States has required immigrants to learn English in order to become a citizen and finish the process of naturalization, the illiteracy rate of language-minority-group citizens is higher than the national illiteracy rate, Los Angeles County taxpayers spent over $1.1 million in 1996 to provide bilingual, and the number of states and counties required to provide multilingual election materials is growing voting. The article also stresses the importance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the amendment made to it in 1975. The writing gives many viable points to argue against the pro-bilingual ballot supporters. I want to use this article in pointing out key facts that show how and why bilingual ballots should be gotten rid of. By zoning in on the five key points mentioned in this article, including the Voting Rights Act, I believe I can get my main argument across in a way that has supporting evidence and back-up.
2. English First Foundation. "Bilingual Ballots: Election Fairness or Fraud?". English First Foundation Issue Brief. 22 February 2000.
The English First Foundation goes more in depth about many of the key points of why we should get rid of bilingual ballots. It starts off by mentioning the Voting Rights Act. This is one of the main arguments that I want to stress in my writing. A second key point the article makes is the question of legal and illegal aliens triggering bilingual requirements. There would be a huge possibility of creating two separate sections of "citizen" and "non-citizen" for the voting. Cost is another major idea that I want to focus on. In this article it also makes a point that unneeded bilingual ballots are quite expensive. Another interesting point made is that the accurate translations cannot be taken for granted. This and the point that bilingual ballots might not even be enough to guarantee an informed vote are two ideas that can be brought together in an argument I am trying to make. Also, the article backs these two points up with the very reasonable argument that private sectors and volunteer translators are very capable of making mistakes. I believe this article will help me in backing up multiple points I am trying to make evident in my paper. The writing is very in-depth and has a lot of information that should be easy in supporting the idea that bilingual ballots should be discarded for good.
Dr. Hughes
English 1101
11/20/09
Topic: Why we should discard all bilingual ballots
1. Blum, Edward. "A Nation Divided: The Consequences of Bilingual Ballots". 5 Reasons to Oppose Bilingual Ballots. 2006.
Edward Blum summarizes the debate of discarding bilingual ballots into five key points in this article. The five major ideas in the writing are: There is no justification for bilingual ballots and election materials, bilingual ballot requirements are arbitrary and wasteful, bilingual ballots are an un-funded mandate on local governments, bilingual ballots increase the the likelihood of errors and voter fraud, and bilingual ballots are a growing burden. A few key points that are made in this article are: since 1907 the United States has required immigrants to learn English in order to become a citizen and finish the process of naturalization, the illiteracy rate of language-minority-group citizens is higher than the national illiteracy rate, Los Angeles County taxpayers spent over $1.1 million in 1996 to provide bilingual, and the number of states and counties required to provide multilingual election materials is growing voting. The article also stresses the importance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the amendment made to it in 1975. The writing gives many viable points to argue against the pro-bilingual ballot supporters. I want to use this article in pointing out key facts that show how and why bilingual ballots should be gotten rid of. By zoning in on the five key points mentioned in this article, including the Voting Rights Act, I believe I can get my main argument across in a way that has supporting evidence and back-up.
2. English First Foundation. "Bilingual Ballots: Election Fairness or Fraud?". English First Foundation Issue Brief. 22 February 2000.
The English First Foundation goes more in depth about many of the key points of why we should get rid of bilingual ballots. It starts off by mentioning the Voting Rights Act. This is one of the main arguments that I want to stress in my writing. A second key point the article makes is the question of legal and illegal aliens triggering bilingual requirements. There would be a huge possibility of creating two separate sections of "citizen" and "non-citizen" for the voting. Cost is another major idea that I want to focus on. In this article it also makes a point that unneeded bilingual ballots are quite expensive. Another interesting point made is that the accurate translations cannot be taken for granted. This and the point that bilingual ballots might not even be enough to guarantee an informed vote are two ideas that can be brought together in an argument I am trying to make. Also, the article backs these two points up with the very reasonable argument that private sectors and volunteer translators are very capable of making mistakes. I believe this article will help me in backing up multiple points I am trying to make evident in my paper. The writing is very in-depth and has a lot of information that should be easy in supporting the idea that bilingual ballots should be discarded for good.
Making English the Official Language of the United States
Jonathan Dishon
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
November 20, 2009
Inhofe, James M. "Should English be declared America's national language? A nation of immigrants considers the pros and cons of giving English official status". New York Times Upfront. FindArticles.com. 19 Nov, 2009. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_4_139/ai_n17215363/>.
James Inhofe discusses how according to several polls done of both Americans and of immigrants that the overwhelming majority of both groups believe that English should be made the official language of the United States. According to the polls about 85 percent of Americans are for English becoming the official language and 71 percent of immigrants are for English becoming the official language as well. Another thing that Inhofe brings up is how many immigrants want to learn English because it will help them succeed in school, increase their earning potential, and enhance their career options. Inhofe also brings up a court case of an immigrant woman named Martha Sandoval who tried to sue the state of Alabama because they did not allow the test to get a driver’s license to be taken in a foreign language. The final verdict sent down by the U.S. Supreme Court was that Mrs. Sandoval was not allowed to sue the state of Alabama. Inhofe also brings up that many federal courts have upheld that there is no right to foreign-language based government forms, deportation notices, and civil service exams. And that there are about 30 years worth of cases related to this subject piled up. This will help out in my paper by giving me some statistics to support my view that English should become the official language. It also will help because it shows that the immigrants, who many may think do not support English, actually are for making English the official language. Another topic Inhofe brings up that will be beneficial to my paper is the court case in which the lady was not allowed to sue the state of Alabama because they did not offer the driver’s license test in a foreign language. I will be able to use this to show that the federal courts have agreed on several occasions that government forms and other forms or documents are not required to be translated into a foreign language.
King, Robert D. “Should English Be The Law?”. The Atlantic Online. April 1997. 55-64. The Atlantic Monthly Company. 18 Nov. 2009. < http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97apr/english.htm>.
In this article Robert King discusses how the language debate is already tearing apart many countries around the world and that the United States could be headed down that path if we continue to try and make English our official language. This is the opposite stance from which I am coming from. My view is that by making English the official language it will unite us and not pull us apart. King makes a very interesting statement in his article when he says that traditionally the American way has been to make English the official language, but to do so quietly and without any fuss. And that there was no rush from the Founding Fathers to make English the official language because it was always taken for granted that English be the national language and that everyone learn English in order to succeed in America. I will be able to use this statement in my paper because it shows that the original plan for the United Sates was to make English the official language. It also says that the Founding Fathers thought of it as a given that people would learn English when they came to America in order to succeed, because it is the language spoken by all native people. This goes along with my view because I believe that if you want to succeed in a country then you will learn that countries official language, and while English is not official quite yet it is still the language spoken by the majority of people in the country. Also in his article King quotes Theodore Roosevelt’s statement that, “We have room for but one language here, and that language is English, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans. We must have but one flag. We must also have but one language.” I will be able to use this quote to show that by making English the official language it will in fact help to unify us as a country. It will take all the groups of English speaking people in America and unify them under one name, Americans.
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
November 20, 2009
Inhofe, James M. "Should English be declared America's national language? A nation of immigrants considers the pros and cons of giving English official status". New York Times Upfront. FindArticles.com. 19 Nov, 2009. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_4_139/ai_n17215363/>.
James Inhofe discusses how according to several polls done of both Americans and of immigrants that the overwhelming majority of both groups believe that English should be made the official language of the United States. According to the polls about 85 percent of Americans are for English becoming the official language and 71 percent of immigrants are for English becoming the official language as well. Another thing that Inhofe brings up is how many immigrants want to learn English because it will help them succeed in school, increase their earning potential, and enhance their career options. Inhofe also brings up a court case of an immigrant woman named Martha Sandoval who tried to sue the state of Alabama because they did not allow the test to get a driver’s license to be taken in a foreign language. The final verdict sent down by the U.S. Supreme Court was that Mrs. Sandoval was not allowed to sue the state of Alabama. Inhofe also brings up that many federal courts have upheld that there is no right to foreign-language based government forms, deportation notices, and civil service exams. And that there are about 30 years worth of cases related to this subject piled up. This will help out in my paper by giving me some statistics to support my view that English should become the official language. It also will help because it shows that the immigrants, who many may think do not support English, actually are for making English the official language. Another topic Inhofe brings up that will be beneficial to my paper is the court case in which the lady was not allowed to sue the state of Alabama because they did not offer the driver’s license test in a foreign language. I will be able to use this to show that the federal courts have agreed on several occasions that government forms and other forms or documents are not required to be translated into a foreign language.
King, Robert D. “Should English Be The Law?”. The Atlantic Online. April 1997. 55-64. The Atlantic Monthly Company. 18 Nov. 2009. < http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97apr/english.htm>.
In this article Robert King discusses how the language debate is already tearing apart many countries around the world and that the United States could be headed down that path if we continue to try and make English our official language. This is the opposite stance from which I am coming from. My view is that by making English the official language it will unite us and not pull us apart. King makes a very interesting statement in his article when he says that traditionally the American way has been to make English the official language, but to do so quietly and without any fuss. And that there was no rush from the Founding Fathers to make English the official language because it was always taken for granted that English be the national language and that everyone learn English in order to succeed in America. I will be able to use this statement in my paper because it shows that the original plan for the United Sates was to make English the official language. It also says that the Founding Fathers thought of it as a given that people would learn English when they came to America in order to succeed, because it is the language spoken by all native people. This goes along with my view because I believe that if you want to succeed in a country then you will learn that countries official language, and while English is not official quite yet it is still the language spoken by the majority of people in the country. Also in his article King quotes Theodore Roosevelt’s statement that, “We have room for but one language here, and that language is English, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans. We must have but one flag. We must also have but one language.” I will be able to use this quote to show that by making English the official language it will in fact help to unify us as a country. It will take all the groups of English speaking people in America and unify them under one name, Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)