This is America. We Speak Whatever Language We Dadgum Well Please Here
Posted by Kevin Carson on Jul 2, 2010 in Commentary • 19 commentsDuring the Alabama Republican primaries, gubernatorial candidate Tim James announced in one of his ads: “This is Alabama. We speak English. If you want to live here, learn it.”
If that were just the sentiment of one knuckle-dragging idjit who washed out of a Republican primary, it wouldn’t be worth commenting on. But James ran the ad precisely because the view he expressed was popular among such a wide range of troglodytes in the general public.
I can’t imagine anything that’s less anybody’s business than what language someone else speaks, or whether or not they “assimilate.” Imagine someone saying “This is Alabama. We go to the Baptist church here.” Or wear a certain kind of clothing, or eat a certain kind of food, or whatever.
I don’t feel obligated to learn Spanish to accommodate immigrants who haven’t learned English, and would resent being expected to do so. But if they can find enough Spanish speakers here to get by, and enough bilingual businesses to employ them and trade with, it’s entirely their business. And it’s certainly none of my business what language people use to talk to each other.
The idea that there should be some single “official” language in each country is one of the more pernicious things associated with the rise of the modern nation-state. It has led to ethnic cleansings, genocides, and enormous population transfers (like, for example, the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey after WWI). It has led, internally, to the sort of linguistic homogenization by which the “standard” versions of national languages spoken in the capitals supplant regional dialects. There’s still something recognizable as a Downeast or Appalachian accent in the U.S., but it’s a lot more watered down than it used to be after fifty years of universal exposure to American Network Standard.
I also wonder just when “we” were supposed to have started speaking only English here. The United States has always had populations of “unassimilated” non-English speakers, as long as it’s been a country: Dutch in the Hudson River valley, Germans in Pennsylvania, French in the St. John’s River valley of Maine, Acadians in Lousiana, etc. So people speaking Spanish (especially in parts of the U.S. that were once part of Mexico) is as American as apple pie.
Oddly enough, the people most agitated about English as the “official language” are many of the same folks who claim to be terrified that the government is taking over everything. It’s hard to think of anything more personal the government could take over than what language a person chooses to speak.
In a free country, people speak whatever language they choose, to anyone who is willing to talk to us, and we all mind our own dadblamed business. That realization alone wouldn’t abolish all government, but it would be a good start towards developing the clear thinking that liberatory futures require.
C4SS (c4ss.org) Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, all of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for such print publications as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty and a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.
And our esteemed president, the other day, indicated that speaking English would be a requirement for application for naturalization! Immigrants must "…learn English before they can get in line to earn their citizenship."
While I most certainly do not want anything official, I think assimilation is definitely an advantageous thing, but it works both ways. The "natives" and the immigrants would always be wise to learn from each other. But I think the interesting thing is that all the anti-immigrationists are the ones preventing assimilation in the first place by turning immigrants into black marketers and second class citizens relegated to the fields and ghettos where they'll be less likely to learn the local language and culture. Anti-social solutions always seem to have the opposite of their intended effect after all.
Sorry, but I have to nitpick your history here… The exchange of populations between Turkey and Greece had nothing to do with language. Orthodox Christians under the jurisdiction of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople living in Asia Minor had to go to Greece, whether they spoke Greek, Turkish, or Bulgarian. Likewise, Muslims living in Greece had to go to Turkey, regardless of their tongue.
I think that there are some reasonable concerns behind the demand that immigrants learn English. Aside from criminal history, it is the only reasonable consideration in limiting immigration….but I wouldn't panic if non-English speakers were let through the border.
I don't think that language should be described as "personal", at least if "personal" is roughly synonymous to "private". Language is totally and fundamentally social. The analogy to religion is a good one — both are basically social, but they are also fundamental to one's own identity (which I'm guessing is what you meant by "personal"). However, no-one is asserting that anyone needs to abandon their mother tongue (as the Germans and Russians did in Poland), just that they need to learn English.
I think this essay totally neglected to examine what is meant by an "official" language. It means that it is the language of the state. It means that the state will not go out of its way to accommodate non-English speakers. This concern is greatest in spontaneous confrontations (e.g. a cop and a driver) where there is no opportunity to request a translator. Of course, just stating that everyone must learn English in no way guarantees that they will, and as Chris points out, it would even prevent them from learning English.
I think you were right to identify the statism implicit in these English-only laws. A universal language enables the intrusive state. Without it, cops have a hard time collecting leads, and any confrontation could turn violent due to a lack of communication between the cop and the civilian (which is exactly what happened a couple of years ago when a man was shot when "child welfare services" tried to take his children and could not explain who they were)
Thanks for the clarification, lukas.
Ricketson, I live in an area with a huge influx of Hispanic poultry workers from the 1990s on, and I can assure you that there are lots and lots of people demanding they lose the native language. Two of the most frequent complaints I hear from the native-born is that the immigrants speak to one another in Spanish in public places, and that there are so many businesses with signs and advertising in Spanish that cater to Spanish-speaking people. I am morally certain that "We speak English here" sloganeering is intended to appeal to people with such resentments.
Why don’t you yankees all learn the language of the land.. what is that, Cherokee? Navaho?
http://xkcd.com/84/
Very good article Kevin. While I think it is "good for you" to have at least a passing acquaintance with other languages it should obviously still be a matter of personal choice. It's amazing how demagogues can whip up hysteria over something that is actually so trivial.
I just wanted to add the requisite, 'Muricka!"
What if businesses went from English to English and Spanish to outright Spanish because of the fast-paced change in demography? A local born might resent that English has been sidelined but if more than enough immigrants change the local economy and the language it uses then the local born have to learn Spanish.
Gil – I would probably not exactly be happy if that happened to me, but on the other hand, I expect that in many cases there would be enough time for the English speakers to learn Spanish if they wish to continue living there without too much hardship. In theory, and I would hope in practice for me, well, change is the only constant. Provided that there were no guns (or other means of force) employed in enacting the change, I think the stubborn English speakers would have to be told, figuratively at least, "learn Spanish or move to an English speaking locale."
Tor
[...] This is America. We Speak Whatever Language We Dadgum Well Please Here Submitted by Robert Fredericks on Sun, 2010-07-04 03:00 in Free Speech This is America. We Speak Whatever Language We Dadgum Well Please Here [...]
Reference:
What Would Life Be Like Under Martial Law? By Giordano Bruno
Just remember folks, when you've slipped past the razor-wire of the Amerikan Gulag, you'll be seeking peace in a foreign nation…with a foreign tongue…amongst foreigners.
Which language would Jesus demand?
Which language would Gandhi demand?
Confucius?
Walk in the other person's shoes for a week or two and then get back to us with your sexism/racism/nationalism and any other mental illness you might have.
Hey, don't shoot the roosters cause they don't lay eggs!
Starving The Monkeys and Ending The Looterfest,
John and Dagny Galt
Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)
.
" I am morally certain that 'We speak English here' sloganeering is intended to appeal to people with such resentments."
Okay. If we look beyond the narrow state policies being proposed and consider the motives behind such policies, then we see some pretty ugly xenophobia. There we can find conservatism, communitarianism, and authoritarianism.
I think that Gil hit upon the deepest fear of these xenophobes — that their environment will change without their permission. Letting aside the low risk of this worst-case scenario happening (at least within one generation), this is an understandable fear, but does it justify harassment/exclusion of people who don't speak English well? On its own, I'd say not–that this is just inconsiderate conservatism where one person insists on his right to keep what he has, even if it interferes with the opportunity for someone else (who has less) to improve their own situation. When an entire community is subject to the same selfish desires, they feel more justified in demanding conformity to the community norms, and perhaps even develop a fetish of their own culture, as though it has value in itself and must be preserved regardless of the benefits it provides to actual people.
But, if we are going to live by the rule of "each of us can talk to whomever and in whatever language we please", then that rule has to apply in both directions–if someone doesn't speak English well, then an English speaker has no obligation to associate with him. Yet there are plenty of people who would force English speakers to associate with others who don't speak English well (or don't speak the favored dialect of English). For instance, the ACLU has some info about "language discrimination" (http://www.aclunc.org/library/publications/language_discrimination_-_know_your_rights.shtml). Language discrimination is illegal in California, at least for employment (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/04/english-only.html)
FYI, you can see the wannabe Governor's advertisement by following the link in my name. I think he makes clear, as Kevin said, that practical concerns (such as saving money) are just a incidental benefit to the "English only" policy that he wants. He doesn't even discuss any way to help non-English speakers to learn English…his proposal is purely punitive (deny driver's licenses to non-English speakers).
I think that the scariest part of his attitude is the insistence that the state has no responsibility to be accessible to the people living within its borders….that it can pick and choose groups to exclude from society (by prohibiting them from driving, in this case).
Gil: Most of us have an attachment to familiar places and to our local communities as we remember them growing up in them, and are uneasy at seeing them changed beyond recogntion in a short time. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have mixed feelings about seeing my hometown undergoing such rapid transformation. But I suspect the Indians felt the same way when my ancestors settled here. And if immigrants settle vacant land that they've justly acquired, or otherwise find places to live and work in ways that don't violate the rights of those who already live here, the balance between languages is something to be determined by the free will and perceived self-interest of all the individuals living here. Language is a classic example of network effect. If enough people refuse to learn Spanish that some immigrants find it a serious inconvenience not knowing English, they'll learn it. On the other hand if there are enough Spanish speakers here who find they can get by comfortably without learning a new language, to the point that the balance shifts and I need Spanish to get by, I'll probably wind up learning Spanish.
Either way, I can't see how I have any right to tell other people what to do. And I suspect that James' ads are intended to appeal to a demographic of authoritarians who — despite all the Gadsden Flags and "liberty" rhetoric — very much enjoys telling people what to do.
Here's an eye opener: Every single person you know, will know or have known has something in common with every other single motherfucking person on this planet. Including you. Including all the Mexican immigrants, legal or illegal, all the Navajo, Ute and Iroquois, all the Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, Brits, Americans and Slavs, all the Dutch, French, Finnish and Russians, not to mention Obama, Bush, Clinton, Palin and Schwarzenegger. We all have this one thing in common. Ready? We are all, every last one of us, going to die. Maybe tomorrow, maybe fifty years from now, but certainly. There is nothing you can do about it. Nothing. Except to live your lives like it's your last day on earth, because it just might be. And you're wasting time whining like a bunch of babies, maybe even believing that it's doing some good? Building walls between each other, real and imaginary? Criticizing that which you admit you don't understand? Whining about language? I'm not just talking to the rednecks, hunters and good old boys, I'm also talking to the hipsters, artists and photographers. Liberals, Conservatives, Anarchists and gluten-free. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. I know I am. I'm going outside. Fuck all y'all.
Immigration restrictionists have their faults in many instances, but carte blanche proponents of “immigrants’ rights,” whose ranks at present unfortunately include most anarchists and libertarians, make the error of failing to recognize the degree to which the state and the plutocracy actually provide support for mass immigration.
This is done in part through imperialism of both a military and economic nature. For instance, the current waves of Latino immigration into the U.S. Southwest have their roots in part in the displacements resulting from the U.S sponsored wars in Central America, and the subsequent U.S.-imposed system of economic imperialism represented by such arrangements as NAFTA. Also, the waves of Asian or Iranian immigration into places like California was to a large degree the result of displacements generated by U.S. aggression in Southeast Asia during the 60s and 70s or the backlash against U.S. imperialist aggression in Iran that culminated in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
The state provides support for immigration through direct subsidy, the enactment of anti-discrimination laws, birthright citizenship, naturalization laws, and the monopolization of immigration policy by the central state itself. The plutocracy provides support for immigration by seeking a larger labor pool, thereby driving down labor costs, and widening internal class divisions within individual industrialized nations. Political parties seeking constituents, ethnic lobbies seeking sympathizers, bureaucracies seeking clients for their services, and intellectual and cultural elites driven by ideology all benefit from immigration. Through monopolization of transportation systems like waterways, air travel, public highways, and public lands, the state essentially imposes a uniform immigration policy on individual communities, associations, and property owners.
The question is what sort of immigration policies should anarchists be agitating for within the context of the institutions that we actually have. We should be agitating not for “immigrants’ rights,” which is just another in the long list of state-imposed, centralized, totalitarian “rights” favored by proponents of liberal mass democracy, e.g. civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, disability rights, the right to health care, right-to-die, et.al. ad nauseum. We should instead be agitating for the elimination of state control over immigration policy by reducing it to the lowest possible level, for instance, to the states, then cities and counties, and then communities and neighborhoods. Further, we should be agitating to eliminate the plutocracy that is propped up and maintained by the state. If indeed the two major institutions that sponsor and profit from mass immigration, i.e. the state and the plutocracy, are eliminated, then it is likely that the resulting impact of the decline of these institutions on mass immigration will produce results that would be favorable to the interests present day immigration restrictionists.
Keith, wouldn't the lowest possible level for immigration policy be the individual? Why gives the neighborhood the right to interfere with the individual's right to travel peaceably on traditional public thoroughfares?
Destroying states around the world would result in fewer refugees, but people still might want to move to better their economic situation as state-created distortions work themselves out. And if American turns into an anarchy while the rest of the world catches up in destroying the weak states, it is likely that people fleeing persecution will choose to come to America.
And as someone who values individual liberty, why would I want to see the world carved up into enclaves designed to limit individuals' choices? If "the neighborhood" decides what kind of people are going to live there, what is to stop them from using violence to prevent an individual from peaceably occupying or receiving property, or choosing to live with someone who doesn't fit the neighborhood power structure's idea of who belongs?
“Keith, wouldn’t the lowest possible level for immigration policy be the individual?”
Not necessarily. This statement assumes that in an anarchy every individual would be an atomized individual unto themselves, without attachments or obligations beyond themselves and their property (however defined). I think this is an extremely reductionist view of human social life and a miscalculation of what kinds of institutions an anarchy would produce.
“Why gives the neighborhood the right to interfere with the individual’s right to travel peaceably on traditional public thoroughfares?”
Well, even in our current state-centric system public thoroughfares are not open “to everyone.” For instance, persons currently classified as illegal immigrants do not have right of access to such thoroughfares, nor do escaped convicts or certain other classes of persons. Even the right of access by others without reduced rights statuses is limited in a myriad of ways. Public lands and thoroughfares are not open to squatters, shanty-dwellers, intoxicated persons, drunk drivers, persons driving without a license, etc. The question is the matter of who would have control over such public resources in the absence of the state and what rules would govern their use. If all state control over public resources was eliminated tomorrow, what would take its place? Is all state property going to be sold to the highest bidder as part of the process of eliminating the state? If so, then it will be the new owners who decide on the rules of entry and use. Is it simply going to be given away? To whom? Is every individual going to be given title to the section of public streets that directly borders their home or business? Are public lands going to be made into a form of corporate property where every citizen of the former America has an equal share or right of access? Whatever privatization or decentralization model one prefers, I’m sure you can see how complicated this question can be.
Further, what is to prevent agglomerations of property owners from forming restrictive covenant communities? They already do this within the context of even the present system. What about the myriads of homeowners associations and business associations who restrict even things like what color you can paint your house or how many dogs you can have? At present, such communities cannot discriminate along lines forbidden by the state (e.g. race, ethnicity) but even that would be possible minus the state’s anti-discrimination laws.
Beyond that, there is the question of defining property rights in the first place. Most anarcho-libertarians hold to the Lockean theories of property promoted by Rothbard, who seemed to make this idea into a quasi-religion. But there are alternative theories of property that even individualist libertarians hold to, e.g. Carson’s usufructuary views, Georgism, etc. I am sure you are also aware of competing theories of property among other kinds of anarchists, e.g. syndicalists, and anarcho-communists. There are also theories of property embedded within cultural norms or legal codes from all over the world that have nothing to do with the Western Anglo-American liberal tradition. For instance, check this out:
http://aianattackthesystem.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/clantribe-property-ownership-and-resource-management/
Elimination of the mono-centric state not only removes the state’s monopoly over all kinds of property, but it removes the state’s monopoly on the definition of property itself. It’s theoretically possible that an anarchy will include certain subsystems where individual property owners (however ownership is defined relevant to wider common law codes or informal custom) co-exist within a community lacking any wider covenant agreements establishing limits on local immigration, occupancy, the use of individual property, and where use of locally-owned thoroughfares are open “to everyone” including, for instance, caravans of migrants coming up from Mexico and Central America to North American and setting up shanties on public streets and lands. But that will hardly be in the case in all or even most instances. I would predict, for instance, that if the entire territory of the U.S. became an anarchy today, large cities or eclaves dominated by hyper-liberals might well allow unbridled immigration. New York or San Francisco might well continue to be “sanctuary cities” (with the possible exception of certain exclusionary neighborhoods) as would leftist enclaves like Santa Cruz or border towns with an already existing immigrant minority. But that would hardly be the case in rural areas, small towns, conservative suburbs, rough and tumble white working class neighborhoods, black ghettos, etc.
“And if American turns into an anarchy while the rest of the world catches up in destroying the weak states, it is likely that people fleeing persecution will choose to come to America.”
America was the first nation to throw off the Old Order, and I would love for it to be the first nation to throw off the liberal-capitalist state and mass democracy as well. If that happens, there may be people from all over the world who prefer “to come to America” but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will be accepted in all circumstances or that such acceptance would be unconditional. The new anarchic institutions may well be very restrictive to newcomers in many instances. Anarcho-syndicalist unions may not wish to share their jobs with migrants. Neighborhood associations might develop very restrictive covenants. Eco-anarchist communities would likely be very concerned about the environmental and population impact of mass immigration. Communities, institutions, and associations of ethnic preservationists, cultural conservatives, religious traditionalists, or even outright racists would certainly be exclusionary in nature. That would be true regardless of how their community came into being, whether by purchasing land or property during the privatization process, or by restrictive neighborhood covenants, or by business contracts, or through private common law codes, or through squatting or homesteading on formerly state-owned lands, or through creation of a seastead, or by secession by a municipality, county, or neighborhood, or collection thereof, from overarching governmental systems.
“And as someone who values individual liberty, why would I want to see the world carved up into enclaves designed to limit individuals’ choices?”
I can’t really speak to that. If “individual liberty” against private institutions, local communities, cultural norms, or historic traditions rather than exemption from overarching states that impose uniforms laws and values is what you want, perhaps you should reconsider being an anarchist and become a liberal-constitutionalist state-centralist like, for instance, professors Ronald Dworkin or Lawrence Tribe.