Eduard,
   My own experience has been very different, though that may be because
the people I deal with have found their way out of those "ghettos" and
onto a college campus.  They tend to be more optimistic than any other
students on campus and more likely to believe in the cornerstone
assumption of the American dream, that hard work and education will
make a huge difference in their lives.
   "Ghetto" is a loaded term, though we all tend to use it. The most
natural thing for someone new to this country is to live in a place
where their language is spoken, their food is sold, their music is
played, their places of worship are close by, and so on. It's also a
place where you are made to feel welcome, not unwanted or an outsider.
(Before fair housing laws passed in 1965, it was not even illegal to
deny housing on the basis of personal prejudice. It still happens, but
not as overtly.) One person's ghetto is another person's ethnic
neighborhood, and that has been true of so many groups in the past,
including the Jewish,Irish, and Italian. If they have jobs that don't
demand English (Herb mentions farm workers, but the urban equivalent is
usually a minimum wage sweatshop or factory), then they may be content
with that, or just too tired to learn a new language at the end of a
hard day. (I remember reading somewhere that the demand for classes in
English is much greater than the offerings, that they often have long
waiting lists.)  But I have never heard of a case of someone who came
here with the same goals for their children. The usual story is that
their sacrifice will make possible a new day for their kids, whom they
exort to take advantage of the possibilities available precisely
because they don't have to quit school to go to work at some sort of
menial labor. The children, meanwhile, grow up faster than normal kids
because they often have to translate for their parents and learn about
things that other kids are spared from.  They end up explaining the new
world to their own parents. The students who make it to college also
report the sadness of seeing friends seduced by drugs and sex and
designer clothes, some of the unfortunate aspects of American life. But
they are motivated in large part by the desire to make their parents'
sacrifices pay off.
   It's easy to overgeneralize from limited personal experience. I think
we need to look at trends over a few generations before we conclude
that English (as a language)is being threatened and that America is
being fragmented because of new immigrants who don't want to assimilate
into American public life. My own experience has been very different.
Your own fears and concerns have been with us throughout American
history, and to this point they have always turned out to be unfounded.
The big enemy hasn't been lack of ambition in the immigrant groups, but
the hostility (and outright discrimination) of mainstream America.

Craig      >


Bilingulism and/or multilingualism is always a plus in someone's
> personal and professional life. I know this from personal experience.
> But there are people who come here as first generation immigrants and
> refuse to learn English. They live and work in gettos, and this makes
> possible for them to live for 30 or 40 years in the United States
> with less than a survival English. I met many such people in New York
> city, and I was outraged at their resistance to English and their
> defiant attitude towards the country which offered them shelter and
> privileges.
>
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>
>>I'm glad to see Cal Poly has figured out how to get Johanna back
> into =
>>ATEG!
>>
>>Johanna's excellent letter to her local paper illustrates an
> important =
>>dynamic in debates of this sort.  I'll infer Hanson's remarks from
> what =
>>she says in response to them, in the absence of Hanson's column.
>>
>>Hanson represents an intelligent, articulate, and passionate
> advocate of =
>>a position who can draw on common sense wisdom.  That last phrase, =
>>"common sense wisdom", is a key, because what we call common sense,
> as =
>>if it were fundamental, universal truth that should be evident to =
>>anyone, is in fact a cultural construct, and it's the cultural =
>>constructs of national language policy, or of free trade, or of =
>>education funding, that constitute the common sense we draw on.
> When =
>>someone with some information and a penchant for critical thinking
> takes =
>>on arguments based on CSW, that CSW is quickly shown to be riddled
> with =
>>fallacies.
>>
>>The problem is that CSW can be transmitted in sound bites.
> Informed, =
>>careful argument can't.
>>
>>Language, especially for monolinguals, defines us more intimately
> than =
>>just about anything else in our lives.  We feel passionate about =
>>language.  We tend to be suspicious of people speaking other
> languages =
>>because they are different in ways we can't fathom.  And so debate
> on =
>>national language policy gets rancorous and divisive, not because it
> =
>>pits CSW against informed, rational argument, but because we care so
> =
>>much about our language and what it signifies to and about us.
>>
>>Kimberley Hunt tapped into these deep feelings in her multi-ethnic
> high =
>>school classroom, and, in part because of the diversity of language =
>>backgrounds, her students were able to argue both passionately and =
>>rationally about language policy.  That setting, unfortunately, is
> the =
>>exception, but her students, having lived with bilingualism, also
> had =
>>constructed an alternative CSW.  The people in the small town I live
> in =
>>are overwhelmingly monolingual and can't imagine being different
> from =
>>that.  Their primary models for bilingual people are the Mexican
> migrant =
>>workers who work at Red Gold, the local tomato processor, and
> Japanese =
>>professionals who run a local Japanese-owned auto parts factory, two
> =
>>groups who are, to the locals, clearly other.
>>
>>As ill-founded as the monolingual CSW may be on language policy, we
> have =
>>to acknowledge that it is what many people know.  They are
> passionate =
>>about it and if we disagree with them we owe them the courtesy of
> taking =
>>them seriously and seriously exploring the issues with them.  I have
> =
>>found that when this is done with respect, a quality often lacking
> in =
>>American political discourse, people often find themselves less
> bound to =
>>those passionate positions than they thought they were and more open
> to =
>>positions they thought they opposed.  But we don't resolve the
> policy =
>>differences.  At best we get people to see other views as also
> rational, =
>>sincere, and based on another sort of CSW.
>>
>>Herb
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Johanna Rubba [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:52 PM
>>To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar; Stahlke, Herbert
> F.W.
>>Cc: Johanna Rubba
>>Subject: Re: English for Immigrants
>>
>>Herb,
>>
>>I got my lists crossed, and I still don't know whether my ATEG
> messages=20
>>are getting through. I am just now catching up on this discussion,
> as I=20
>>was away over the weekend. If this does not appear on the list,
> would=20
>>you post it for me? Thanks!
>>
>>It is especially pertinent now in view of the legislation passed by
> the=20
>>Senate declaring English the "national language" of the USA. I have
> yet=20
>>to read the text of that law.
>>----
>>
>>I have researched the issue of English-only considerably, having=20
>>written a major grad-school paper about the Official-English
> amendment=20
>>passed by CA voters in 1986. I have followed developments
> informally=20
>>ever since, in part to inform my students and in part out of my
> own=20
>>interest.
>>
>>I have been reading a book lately about language regulation
> (called=20
>>"Verbal Hygiene", by Deborah Cameron -- an excellent book). An apt=20
>>passage says "verbal hygiene debates [i.e., language controversies]
> are=20
>>never only about language".  In fact, she claims, they are usually=20
>>about something much bigger. As one poster pointed out, the=20
>>English-only debate has more to do with cultural supremacy than=20
>>language. Native American languages are indigenous (unless we want
> to=20
>>quibble about how Native Americans got here), and both Spanish and=20
>>French have deep roots -- preceding English settlement; German was=20
>>extraordinarily common in parts of the US until the 1st World War --
> =20
>>there were German schools and public media. Of course, the Amish
> and=20
>>Mennonites still speak German today (I was able to converse in
> German=20
>>with my brother's ex-wife, who was raised in a Mennonite family
> and=20
>>spoke only German until she went to school). English as a "common=20
>>language" is a myth perpetrated with the aim of imposing cultural=20
>>supremacy by the dominant group. It is pertinent to note that, when
> the=20
>>writers of the Constitution considered language, they declined to
> make=20
>>any federal policy out of respect for freedom of speech, fear of=20
>>divisiveness, and excessive federal power.
>>
>>Every time we have had a wave of immigration, there have been
> language=20
>>concerns. Ben Franklin complained (tongue-in-cheek?) about German=20
>>taking over. In the early 20th century, there were concerns about
> the=20
>>flood of languages coming in with Eastern- and Southern-European,
> as=20
>>well as Asian, immigrants. Now it's Spanish. Jingoism rears its
> ugly=20
>>head when the majority feels the threat of being overwhelmed by=20
>>foreigners. (Native American languages, of course, were
> deliberately=20
>>extinguished by the boarding school system. In parts of the US up
> until=20
>>very recently (if it is not still going on), children were beaten
> or=20
>>punished if they spoke a Native language.
>>
>>The general public (and the government, for that matter) seem to
> be=20
>>unaware of a whole area of governing known as language policy. The
> USA=20
>>sets language policy on an ad-hoc basis, allowing the general
> public=20
>>(via referenda) and the government (pushing political agendas) to=20
>>create policies uninformed by linguistic expertise (of which there
> is a=20
>>huge body on this issue). Each state does its own thing;  there
> are=20
>>periodic proposal to amend the US Constitution to make English the
> only=20
>>official language, but these have never gotten out of committee
> (but=20
>>watch this one!) This is not the case in other countries. Canada
> has=20
>>been obliged to face language policy because it tries to respect
> human=20
>>rights and correct past wrongs. Australia and South Africa's=20
>>constitutions are quite recent, and both have formulated language=20
>>policy on the basis of both advice from linguists and true respect
> for=20
>>democratic principles and the right to self-determination. Both
> declare=20
>>English an official language, but  encourage and support use and=20
>>learning of other languages. South Africa has 8 other official=20
>>languages. This doesn't cause a bureaucratic nightmare, because
> the=20
>>languages are regionally managed, and one goal of the education
> system=20
>>is to assure that all children learn English and/or Afrikaans in=20
>>addition to their native languages (many, many South Africans grow
> up=20
>>multilingual in several indigenous languages, so learning a
> language=20
>>isn't a big hairy deal as it is here). I have a handout that gives=20
>>relevant text from both constitutions; it makes great class-
> discussion=20
>>material when you compare it with the many laws passed by the US
> states=20
>>and the federal proposals. I can send these handouts to anyone who=20
>>wants one. You can learn all about these at this excellent website:
>>
>>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/
>>
>>Below my signature in this message is a copy of a letter I wrote
> in=20
>>November to our local paper. It was in response to an editorial by=20
>>Victor Davis Hanson, a right-winger commentator (he is a professor
> at=20
>>Stanford, specialty Imperial Roman military.) Hanson grew up in
> CA's=20
>>central valley, on a farm with a lot of Hispanic workers. His views
> on=20
>>treatment of immigrants are quite interesting and much more
> liberal=20
>>than most conservatives, but his ideas about language are Stone-Age.
>>
>>Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
>>Linguistics Minor Advisor
>>English Department
>>California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
>>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>Tel.: 805.756.2184
>>Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
>>Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
>>URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>>
>>"Once again, Victor Davis Hanson (Commentary, 11/20/05)
> pontificates=20
>>beyond his area of expertise, declaring English "our common bond"
> and=20
>>claiming bilingual education "eroded first-generation immigrants'=20
>>facility in English." He also makes the typical right-wing appeal
> to=20
>>the non-existent 'good old days', "the inclusivity that once
> worked"=20
>>prior to the 1960's. Those were the days when blacks were restricted
> to=20
>>inferior schools, neighborhoods, and jobs; Jews were not welcome
> at=20
>>posh country clubs; and more than half the population, viz.,
> women,=20
>>were acceptable in the work force as long as they did not aspire
> to=20
>>men's jobs and accepted sexual comments and advances from their
> bosses.=20
>>Very inclusive.=A0
>>
>>All of these people spoke English. Blacks and whites shared English
> in=20
>>the South for hundreds of years, but the bondage of slavery seems
> to=20
>>have trumped the "bond" of a common language. Speaking English did
> not=20
>>help Irish immigrants in the nineteenth century, who suffered
> serious=20
>>discrimination, in large measure because they were Catholic. Oh,
> and=20
>>the sovereign against whom American colonists revolted in the
> 1770's=20
>>spoke ... English. Language certainly can be a common bond, but that
> =
>>bond=20
>>is easily overridden by divisive forces such as racism, sexism,
> and=20
>>religious intolerance.
>>
>>Hanson refers to Quebec, perhaps with the strife between French
> and=20
>>English speakers in mind. Language-based strife generally arises
> when=20
>>those in power suppress a language. The English imposed restrictions
> on=20
>>French in Quebec long before the Quebecois turned the tables; strife
> in=20
>>Sri Lanka, eastern Turkey, and apartheid South Africa resulted
> partly=20
>>or mainly from language oppression (remember the Soweto massacre,
> in=20
>>which white South Africans shot and killed children who were
> marching=20
>>for the right to be schooled in a language they understood).
>>
>>Immigrants come to America because they share values like economic=20
>>opportunity, freedom of speech and religion, and a superior
> education=20
>>for their children (sadly, only some reap these benefits). The
> great=20
>>majority of immigrants want to learn English, and want their
> children=20
>>to learn English. Historically, the languages of immigrant groups
> cease=20
>>to be used by those groups by the third generation born on
> American=20
>>soil; the current wave is following suit.
>>
>>Where bilingual education has failed, it has failed mainly because=20
>>affluent Americans do not want to use their tax dollars to support
> a=20
>>high-quality education for the poor. Bilingual education comes in
> many=20
>>forms, and there are forms that work: resource-intensive programs
> that=20
>>give children five to seven years to master English while
> cultivating=20
>>academic proficiency in their native language. Tell me who has
> better=20
>>potential for "economic security" in today's global economy - a=20
>>monolingual person, or someone literate and fluent in two or more=20
>>languages? Isn't there a certain irony in the fact that we encourage
> or=20
>>require middle-class children to study a second language in high
> school=20
>>or college, but do our best to discourage bilingualism in
> immigrant=20
>>children?
>>
>>I recommend that Mr. Hanson consult the large body of scholarly=20
>>research - by language experts - on bilingual education and
> language=20
>>policy. An excellent resource is James Crawford's substantial
> website,=20
>>including the page "Ten Common Fallacies About Bilingual
> Education"=20
>>(http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/crawford01.html) and the
> site "The=20
>>Effectiveness of Bilingual Education", hosted by the Center for
> Applied=20
>>Linguistics at http://www.cal.org/ericcll/faqs/rgos/bi.html. He
> will=20
>>then have standing to express an opinion on these issues."
>>
>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/