So let's see. How many things haven't you convinced me of? It's a pretty long list for such a simple post. Principally, I'm just not convinced the national anthem is under assault, any more than Christmas. I'm not convinced a translation is a different version. I'm not convinced that civic rituals quite generally aren't practiced in a range of languages. (How many languages are spoken when people remember their first view of America or gather for July 4?)

I'm not convinced that "did you really sing the national anthem or only sorta?" is a question that'll resonate with most Americans, without a good deal of lame explaning. I'm not convinced that the national anthem is much of a shared bond, rather than one of those things people know but never hear other than at the ballpark and even there never sing. I'm not convinced that we have that kind of civil religion in this country, beyond a very few things indeed we do take for granted, such as flags flying on July 4 or draped over coffins, and it's nowhere near in that league. I'm not convinced that we actually need or rely on that kind of symbolism, whereas our true shared bond is a felt patriotism and, with luck, the Constitution itself.

I'm not convinced that shared bonds need be unitary in form. It's a shared bond, say, in New York that we have all those parades each year, even though it's a collective event, in a sense, with none of us marching in them all. (In that sense, we really are de facto multcultural as part of our shared bond.) I'm not convinced a shared bond need be an uncontested one. (Think of competing claims to the constitution!) And last, I'm not convinced that any complaint like this isn't a revolting, immoral nativism that does not belong on in even moderately liberal forum.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

A Spanish version of the national anthem is an affirmation of patriotism and nationalism; I am not sure that Bush and his cohorts help themselves by becoming more and more identified with a xenophobic strain of nationalism. The underlying strains of nativism and anti-foreign, anti-black, anti-woman, homophobic iintolerance and bigotry in the Republican Party are not always sure winners.

Oh, and ironically, Kevin Phillips is reported to have said that during the 2000 campaign, he witnessed Bush, during a campaign stop, singing the anthem in Spanish. Which rings true, here in Texas.

Seemingly, it appears many believe that Mexicans should not be allowed any celebration of their heritage...we reserve that right for the Irish on St. Patricks and the Italians on Columbus Day...to name just a couple. The irony is that Mexicans are being criticized for wanting to sing a song celebrating the U.S., yea that's just not acceptable behavior.

Those who think that race has nothing to do with the immigration isue might want to take another look.

more observations here:

www.thoughttheater.com

I am against a second language National Anthem. All previous immigrant groups (Italians, Germans, Poles, Russians, etc.) assimilated themselves into the American culture and learned the language. My parents came over on the boat from Italy in the 30's and starting with nothing they worked hard and became part of the American Dream. Part of that had to do with learning the official language of this country and singing the National Anthem in English.

Am I saying that ethnic groups should foresake their roots? Not in the slighest. I think we should all be proud of who we are, where our ancestors came from and be proud to be part of this great country now. But we start with a Spanish language anthem then shouldn't there be a German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Japanese, Pakastani, etc. versions?

I think by trying to push spanish as a second American language does spanish speaking Americans an injustice. The only way to have a chance of bettering yourself in America is to be able to speak english and by not encouraging that we are not doing what we should to make sure everyone has the chance to become part of the American Dream...like the immigrants who came to this great country in the preceding decades and centuries.

Bush used this to his political advantage?

Well, duh! He's a politician.

It is undeniable that much of the backlash against immigration is culturally driven.  In every generation, nativists have made the argument that America cannot assimilat the current wave of immigrants into American society.  Samuel Huntingdon's latest book provides the intellectual fodder for the attack on Latino immigrants - the idea that continguity with Mexico and the histroy of the American Southwest make Latinos unassimilable.  Opponents of nativism can respond to this in one of two ways - by demonstrating that the nativists arguments about assimilation are nonsense or by challenging the fundamental assumption that assimilation is worthwhile. 

Taking the national anthem or any other symbol of the United States and translating out of English into Spanish is a powerful statement of the second response.  It is an argument that assimilation is not necessary nor desirable.   Etzioni rights points out that this approach  is neither communally desirable - since English is an essential unifier of Americans of all backgrounds - nor politically wise.  A far wiser course would be to assuage the cultural anxiety that the nativists tap into (by making English formally the national language) while at the same time creating real substantive gains (such as a path towards citizenship) for the millions of illegal immigrants yearning to be a part the American dream.      

And telling people that they are ignorant and xenophobic is going to convince people that Ann Coulter is wrong when she says we hate them how?

First, I would like to say that I agree with what PW has said, along with many of the other posters here. I am not a big fan of flag waving, red, white, and blue wearing, national anthem singing patriotism. Personally, I find this type of patriotism superficial. In fact, this sort of nationalism makes me a bit uncomfortable (maybe it is the German in me) - whether it is by the USA or anyone else. And I dislike being labelled as "unpatriotic" just because I do not engage in flag-waving, pledging, singing the "Star Spangled Banner," etc. As PW has stated, I also believe that we should be "brought together by a common ethic, a sense of larger community, and a pride in our national purpose."

However, I am going to play the devil's advocate here. I have no problem with the "Star Spangled Banner" sung in different languages, people waving the Mexican flag, etc. But I know a LOT of people who do. And many of them are probably potential Democrat voters who cherish these American symbols. And when patriotism gets involved in elections, bad things happen. It happened in 1988, when the elder President Bush commented on Michael Dukakis' "lack of patriotism" because Dukakis did not want to make the "Pledge of Allegiance" mandatory. And, for Californians, in 1994 there was Proposition 187, which was nicknamed by the Republicans, "Save Our State" (or SOS, get it?). In both of these cases, the incumbents (Bush 41 being the vice-president) - both Republicans - were extremely unpopular, but ended up winning with appeals to patriotism.

So what I am saying is that we may be dismissive of these issues, but they are important to a lot of people. And especially in close elections, calls to patriotism may make a difference. And as much as we progressives might see something like a Spanish language "Star Spangled Banner" as a non-issue. It is an issue to a lot of people, and it might end up sparking a backlash.

I simply want to thank you for posting this rebuttal to the comments on your last thread. I greatly prefer contributors that acknowledge that they got commentary, and say what they gathered from that input, rather than ignoring it as seems to be blogger tradition. I learn from it, if nothing else.

But I also feel that if more bloggers did this, react to some of the commentary, refocus and reframe, like a good teacher does, the quality of the discourse in the blogosphere as a whole might improve.

Ignoring the rabble or peanut gallery below your post does not make it go away. Thinking on this reminds me of the Mike McCurry brouhaha going on now, about the net post he did on Huffington post, the angry reaction he got. Well, he was a rare one not to ignore the insults in comments, he's not trained in blog-etiquette I guess, he reacted back just as angrily, like they were actual people commenting on his thread. That obviously is not the best way to go, at least not in the short term, though in the end, it might cause some of the insulters to rethink how they "talk" on the net. The best way is how you have done it, acknowledge the differences, refocus and reframe, and continue conversation and challenge new thinking on everyone's part. Thanks again.

>> need some shared bonds if we are to remain as one society, especially in this age of polarization

shared bonds, sure. But why focus on the cheapest ones (flag, anthem)? Are our bonds that cheap?

As long as Americans don't care that 50 million of their compatriots go without health care and that 8000 of them die every year for lack of medical care, don't talk to us about shared bonds!

Americans are all for shared bonds, as long as they don't bind, they're not shared, and they cost nothing.

Im in total agreement, when will progressives and liberals realise that the reason the rightys keep winning is simple. They're not better than us, they don't even really care about us. They simply know how to get a national debate started and to watch as our side gets busy trying to prove to everyone how caring and compassionate we are. With so many more important issues facing this nation we've managed, at least here on the wyoming/nebraska border to lose a great many votes from republicans disgusted by bush. Ordinary working poor american citizens are hurt by illegal immigration and by republican policies but instead of utilizing this in the next election we have alienated these americans with our support of illegal immigrant rights. The term undocumented workers is garbage and this spanish version of the anthem has its references to breaking the chains, I dont recall that line in the original, if we want to win elections we better as a party figure this out.

If you aren't on Rove's payroll, jerk, you should be.

Well put.

Deleted

Unlike the gay marriage debate, which will go on for some time, this anthem flap is small potatoes. It is just the talk radio and cable news Outrage of the Week, and will be forgotten as soon as the scaredy-cat right lights upon a new outrage next week - like imported Chinese flouride in the drinking water, or canine sodomy, or bumper stickers on Pugeots that desecrate the American flag or Tom Hanks's War against the Catholic Chruch.

I think we are goin to do quite well in November, because the country is tiring of these nattering far right boobs, their incompetence, their ignorance, their boorishness and their tiresome Chicken Little whining. I suggest you catch the new wave, rather than flaggelating yourself by hanging onto an ebbing cultural movement.

Isn't the best solution to this the same as the appropriate handling of the latest atrociously sexist rap song--just ignore it, don't buy it, don't talk about it, and it will probably just go away, like a bad sitcom?

Actually, some states have a treaty obligation to use Spanish. Like California. Should we violate the international Treaty of Guadelupe Hildago, or honor it?

Neoboho

Well, this here ain't the Democratic party, and my impression is that most voters can tell the difference between us and them, us being ordinary citizens expressing our opinion that this isn't a serious issue (maybe 'screw themselves' is still not the best way to put it, but)....

Criticism of Bush is completely accurate when by his own words he said:

I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English, and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English. (from foxnews.com)

However, the real "attack" is against working families whose swelling patriotism is bigger than their ability to express. It is damning to criticize them for wanting to praise their country, no matter what sounds come from their lips.

I take from Mr. Etzione's post that he thinks there is a movement in this nation to have official versions of the Star Spangled Banner in other languages, that there is a desire to make the singing of these translations mandatory.

I was not aware of any such proposals, but I may not be up on everything.

I thought we were discussing whether it was "right", "wrong", "wise", "unwise" or somehow "unpatriotic" to sing the anthem in a language other than English.

Given that there have been documented translations of the anthem into other languages since at least 1861 (German), 1919 (Spanish, commissioned by the US Bureau of Education), French (by the Acadians of Louisiana), Hebrew (1941, commissioned to honor an anniverary of the birth of Francis Scott Key), and more recently Samoan, I find this current controversy to be not only manufactured, but manufactured with the intent of dividing the people of this nation.

I find it unwise to single out one group of people and focus on them as if they were somehow detrimental to the nation because they have decided to sing a version of the SSB in the language they are most comfortable using. I think this is a tactic of the right wing of the Republican Party and their supporters used to increase their power, not develop national unity.

I find this a very sad and scary tactic.

Plus, the hypocrisy is so amazing: That during an election campaign, when wooing Hispanic voters, Mr. Bush would even join in singing (or mouthing) the Spanglish words to the SSB, but during a run-up to an off-year election, he would state is should only be sung in English, when wooing his conservative base. Wow.

Well, yeah, I guess if the phrasing we opt for is 'you are ignorant and xenophobic,' then Ann wins.  But this is, at heart, a pretty temperate message: this anthem issue, we say, is unimportant, and our ability to let easy political stunts roll off us is integral to the American character.  Then we say nothing, and go on our way.  

I agree with you that this issue cuts against progressives if we let it get our goat, leading to angry expostulations about the ignorant masses.  But I can't agree that the best thing to do is to refrain from disagreement - those of us on the other side of this have a point, it is a reasonable and rational one, and when made with a cool head, I doubt it's that off-putting to anyone.

I mow my own lawn, the only thing illegals do for me and most working poor americans is work cheap and recieve special considerations from both the republicans and democrates. Yes many of them pay taxes, of course they do this with stolen SS#s which I believe is also a crime. I dont want republicans running this country but at the same time Im not interested in helping democrates get power back when something as simple as right and wrong does'nt even have a place in their stance on the issue. When it comes to whats best for americans, american citizens have to be the priority of our leaders. Bush and his Bushites have consistantly hurt americans as democrates have correctly been pointing out, but if democrates want to win elections they better wake up and start listening to just want our best interests to be their priority. I dont know what I will do in the voting booth this year but I do know several republicans who are disgusted by their parties handling of things, both working poor and middle class looking to vote for democrates who now as a result of the stand taken by the democrates reffering to those who only want our countries laws to be upheld as racists who will never vote for them now. The republicans dangled the bait and once again democrates took it. It does'nt matter that neither party is going to do anything about illegal immigration, its just like every other social issue from gay marriage to abortion the republicans know that democrates will always take the bait and go against ordinary american sensibilities and opinion.

Preview is a good function--too bad I didn't use it. Thought would give me italics. Did not expect loud, garish boldface! Sorry--did not mean to "shout."

I will not back down from my position that not encouraging assimilation of Latino-Americans into our American culture is actually doing them an injustice. And when I speak of assimilation I am not talking about disowning one's heritage. As far as your comment about Americans abroad expecting the world to speak english just because it is our language...that is wrong too. If I go to Mexico I would try to speak spanish and if I went to France I would try to speak French.

I have no problem if Latino-Americans want to speak spanish. That is their right. But to get ahead in the country people need to at least be able to understand and communicate in english if only on a basic level.

I am not going to defend Marshall's opinion just as I won't defend the horrible Dred Scott decision as I won't defend the genocide committed on the Native Americans.

Since the founding of this country the state language has been english, even if it hasn't been officially codified. There are many other ethnic groups in this country are we going to start catering to all of them? We should if we start catering the spanish speaking ethnic groups. And our spanish speaking brothers are just as American as anybody other citizen...not any more or any less.

Libertine,

You seem to be on auto-repeat mode because you've clearly ignored a very critical detail that Neoboho mentioned in his posts: The right for Latinos, both in the Mexican War's immediate aftermath and in perpetuity thereafter, to speak Spanish is guaranteed by the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty as well as a number of follow-up treaties that ensued after the Mexican War of 1846-48. In the hierarchy of American laws, treaty law is about as high as it gets, next to the Constitution itself (which of course is silent on the language issue, and in crucial respects treaty law even supersedes the Constitution when it comes to issues negotiated between countries). Thus, whether you like it or not, the US already is a bilingual country, period, because of the Mexican War alone. This fact is further reinforced by US annexation of Puerto Rico, and also be the annexation of Florida (which also involved Spanish language guarantees). Spanish is both a practical and a legally guaranteed language of the US, along with English as well as native American languages. It's not going away, period.

Treaty law is so fundamental in part because the guarantees of a treaty (negotiated in good faith) are essential to ending a war in the first place. The linguistic and cultural guarantees of the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty were among the things the US used to help halt the bloody war, and to give the Mexican government and the Chicanos in the new US an incentive to cease hostilities. Although the Mexican capital had been occupied, *Mexican standing armies were still intact* and there was substantial guerrilla warfare in what were then the Mexican NW and much of what now constitutes the desert border states of the US. The Mexicans were prepared to dig in and fight for a long, long time and make things miserable and unsustainable for the US. Naturally, the Americans were desperate to explore the territorial resources of the territory (as well as to extend slavery into at least a portion of it, which the Mexican government had forbidden in the late 1820's-- a shameful episode of our history that we try to forget), and so the US proposed a generous treaty to the Mexican government and to the many Mexican citizens into the hoped-for new US territory to convince them to not carry on the fighting.

The protection of Spanish and guarantees of Chicano property rights were at the heart of the new treaty, and it was only because of those guarantees that the US was able to move into the territory without facing continued hostile Mexican guerrilla activity and popular resistance. You don't ever violate such treaty guarantees, period. Even if those terms were pushed by the wayside in many cases, this in no way makes the guarantees any less applicable today. The basic message, in other words, is that this is one of the prices paid for such territorial expansion (or overstretch, perhaps)-- when you invade a territory like that and take in high numbers of the former citizens of a country within your borders, you take in their culture, too. Spanish *is* an American language, not a foreign one.

Frankly, I find all this hand-wringing about Spanish to be totally ridiculous. For native-born English-speaking Americans, Spanish is one of the easiest languages to pick up-- we're blessed, in many ways, that Spanish is our other language rather than, say, Arabic or Russian. It's also a melodious language and a pretty nice technical vehicle too (all the Latin and Greek terminology). So there really isn't much of an excuse for not picking it up. I've never really had much emotional partiality for or against Spanish since I'm not Latino myself, but I've learned Spanish because my job requires it. *All kinds of jobs* require fluent Spanish these days, even big-time 6-figure professional jobs. It's just a language you have to know for practical reasons if nothing else!

As has been said before, Sage, because of the Mexican War and the annexations of Puerto Rico and Florida, and the numerous treaty guarantees that ensued here (not to mention the linguistic protections afforded for native American tribes by other treaties), the US is not an English-speaking nation only. Spanish and the native American tongues all have very official, legal, treaty-based protections that are at the very pinnacle of American law. Most Latinos I know want to learn some English, but they quite reasonably expect Spanish to be equally important in the territories ceded after the Mexican War, where treaty guarantees protect Spanish. Most countries are multilingual and wind up doing just fine. We will as well.

Amen, i think its important for us as americans to stand up for people suffering all over the world but we will be able to do better if we first make sure our own citizens are'nt suffering due to the absolute lack of concern by our government. Darfur is a good example as is mexico, and i might add is iraq. When americans and our leaders dont demand that these governments take responsibility for making life better for all their citizens we only impower corrupt governments. Today its hard to believe that any of our leaders are willing to get past just sounding good. In the past americans recognized that any work was honorable and i believe most of us still do. If shovelling manure from the stable is the job that needs done today then having crap on your boots and britches is just a sign of good ol fashioned honest work, its not beneath anyone. We have to get the bushites out of power but we have to be able to show the hard working conservatives that these people controlling their party have lied to them, that we as progressives and liberals are'nt the people we've been portrayed by the RNC. Americans have bigger hearts and more compassion than anyone else but taking care of americans always has to come first. Blaming the other side and name calling only keeps us divided and lets the polititians keep on looking out for themselves first and their citizens become an afterthought.

rmrdoooo,

I know this post has little to do with national anthems, Spanish, flag waving, or illegal immigration, but I just want to ask some questions anyway. First, good post, I just have a few questions/comments and I need some clarification. Especially because what you said seems to cut across MANY social issues.

1. What does your co-worker mean by, "The Democrats need to run someone who is not so liberal that they can't get elected?" I mean, if you really look at their positions on almost all issues, Gore and Kerry could hardly be considered "too liberal." And remember, Democrats chose John Kerry because he is less "liberal" than Howard Dean (the other top contender for the Democratic nomination). The whole definition of "liberal" has been used so many times, and in so many different and conflicting instances that it's original meaning is lost. Sheesh, if John Kerry is a liberal, what does that make Barbara Boxer?

2. How does your co-worker define "liberal?" How do you define "liberal?" This whole term is so subjective, and it can have different meanings among different people and different areas. I could be considered "liberal" in Fremont, California and "moderate" in Berkeley, California. Some people think liberals are just tree huggers who are anti-war, others believe anyone left of center is a liberal. This is confusing to me because it seems like people lump all of us ("Us" meaning Democrats, progressives, liberals, environmentalists, etc.) together, when there are vast differences among the Democratic party.

3. What do you mean by "marginalizing, insulting, or denigrating them?" This is something that is confusing and frustrating to me for a number of reasons. First, I know several Republicans, and they call us (again, progressives and Democrats) every nasty name in the book, and yet when we support things like, for example, gay marriage ("You elitists just want to impose YOUR views on everyone else!") or health care ("You elitists want to spend our money to help lazy people!") we are instantly seen as "elitists," "out of touch with mainstream Americans," and "condescending." And several of my Republican acquaintances have called Democrats stupid, lazy, and even racist. Second, sometimes even HAVING different opinions is enough to be considered insulting to several conservatives. So, if one does not like NASCAR, they are considered "elitist." Likewise, if someone is Agnostic and they want a strict separation of Church and State, they are labelled "condescending." Third, many conservatives and Republicans do not have a problem imposing THEIR moral views on everyone else. And they (not so explicitly) try to marginalize many groups such as homosexuals and poor people.

Anyway, I am sorry to go off topic. It's late and I have been working all day long! And YES, I know that we (Democrats) need to re-package our image to get more votes and appeal to more "moderate" (whatever that means - moderate Americans are conservative Europeans) voters. But it seems like every time that we say something, even if it is just to state our viewpoints, and even if a reasonable person would not consider our statements "condescending" at first glance, we ALWAYS seem to be labelled as elitist, insulting, condescending, etc.

And, of course, this "Spanish Language National Anthem" issue plays right into this.

You sanctimonious condescension towards people whose votes Democrats need is disgusting.

No temo Espanol. Amo espanol! Es una lingua muy bonita.  Aunque, me olvido todo mi espanol que aprendi en escuela....

You seem to be forgetting that I am starting from the premise that legalizing the millions of Latinos who are currently illegal aliens is a good thing for America.  I believe America's cultural diversity is one of its critcal strengths.  Our diveristy should be treasured and celebrated.  If I didn't believe that, I would choose to live in Nebraska rather than the East Village.

But wishing Americans to transform overnight into Canadians with respect to bilingualism is not only unreasonable, but undesirable.  The common heritage of our nation is an English heritage.  The English language is accessible to all Americans, regardless of their country of origin.  Privileging one immigrant language over another because of events that took place over 150 years ago is nonsensical.  Moreover, it precisely the type of sentiment that fuels the nativist backlash and results in draconian immigration legislation that makes it next to impossible for Latinos to immigrate legally.    

I have no objection to private bilingualism.  In fact, I am strong proponent of people learning as many languages as possible.  Of course Latinos should treasure the Spanish langauge as a means to pass on their heritage to their chidlren.  Of course, the Native Americans should keep their langauges alive.I hope to pass on to my children a better knowledge of Hebrew than I ever received so that they can be fluent in the central language of their faith and tradition.  But our public sphere must be open and accessible to everyone.  And therefore English, which unites all Americans, must be given a privileged status, if not de jure, then de facto.  (Legalize on the other hand should be kept in the low esteem it currently is).

Ummmmm...I never said people didn't have the right to speak spanish either freely or at their discretion. So I am not in favor of violating the terms of the treaty Teddy. As far as "Chicano" rights, property and all others, they should enjoy the same rights as any other American...

As far as multi-lingualism is concerned...I am all in favor of people being as fluent in as many languages as possible. I agree with you completely on that philosophical level. I don't know if we stand together on the practical level though. The reality is the America is a country whose vast majority of citizens speak english as their primary and only language. Common sense would say it would be easier to assimilate into our society if an individual (of any nationality) learned to use the english language. But on a philosophical level I would never say people should be forced to speak english if they chose not to speak it...and that always trumps practicality with me. Because in my book the freedom we have in this country is the only thing I celebrate more then our country's diversity.

But I still say from a practical point of view that it is easier to live in our society if an individual has some level of mastery of the english language...

Actually Constitutional law trumps treaty law. (U.S. Const. art VI cl. 2). Also, subsequent treaties and statutes can abrogate a previous treaty (although courts will only find such abrogation when the subsequent statute or treaty is explicit). This is how the United States got out from under the Franco-U.S. alliance during the Napleonic wars and Italy got out of its alliance with the Central Powers during WWI.

The only entity to ever claim treaty law trumped everything else is the Eurpoean Court of Justice and it only applied that ruling to the founding treaties of the European Union. The idea that treaty law is the highest form of law is inaccurate.

Libertine,

Your conclusions here are reasonable, and your perception of the competing issues does address a part of the difficulty with this sort of thing.

Here's another analogy. In Great Britain, obviously, English is the most common and useful language in the country to speak. However, the Welsh in western England speak a Celtic language that has persisted through over 800 years of mainly English (and Anglo-Norman) rule. Wales's history before this was difficult, as the Welsh had been pushed to the frontiers of Britain by both the Romans *and* by the German tribes (the speakers of early English) who arrived in the 5th-century A.D. The Welsh language was thus critical to the persistence of Welsh culture, and if anything became even more so after the conquest by the English troops in the 1200's.

So today, almost a millennium later, Welsh is still a surprisingly strong and thriving Celtic language, right up there with Irish Gaelic, and in fact there's substantial Welsh-language media and literary output in the Welsh tongue (which is called Cymraeg by the Welsh themselves, who call Wales by the name of Cymru). There is also instruction in the Welsh language, and Welsh is used as a standard for business communication. Irish Gaelic has also been enjoying somewhat of a revival, and even Scottish Gaelic is making a small but important comeback. Although not a majority language, Welsh stays strong in Britain.

Now, by analogy, it would be much "easier," much more "practical" for the Welsh to give up their Celtic tongue and convert to speaking English as their native language, but they refuse to do that. Their language is essential to them, and their ancestors fought wars and shed their blood to protect it. Most Welsh do speak at least some English as well, but Welsh is the primary tongue there.

The main problem with the practicality argument, I find, is that we have to ask, "practical for what?" Practical for turning the people into masses of big-budget consumers for low-brow English TV shows and products at the local department store? I'd suspect that most people in Wales feel that the minor inconvenience of speaking a minority tongue is tiny in comparison to the cultural richness they gain by connecting up with their ancestors and their culture, with all their literature and with the tacit sense of what it means to be Welsh. Notice that this argument is made with strength for Welsh, a small minority language in a small section of a European island nation. Compare this with Spanish, a much larger and more important world language with a major global presence and tens of millions of native speakers within the US, their language rights protected by multiple treaties, and you can see why Spanish is so strong here.

I suspect that many if not most of us in the US with native American blood feel a similar sort of drive as the Welsh do to protect their native tongues. Most of us either on or off the reservations do speak some English, but our native American tongues are one of the most important links we have to a culture that the Anglo settlers nearly wiped out. We're fiercely determined to retain our language and, as you say, our freedom guarantees that for us.

The point of debate, I suspect, is using these languages for *official* purposes, and that's where the treaties come in. Numerous treaties negotiated by the US government with the sovereign tribal nations in what is now the US, explicitly guarantee the right of native American tongues to be used in official settings. The same sort of thing goes for Spanish, due to the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty and numerous other treaties that were negotiated and signed as the US expanded into Florida, Mexico's former territory and Puerto Rico. Many other languages besides Spanish and the native American tongues (such as Vietnamese, German and French in the upper Midwest and Maine) have quasi-official status and are in use for practical reasons, but Spanish and the native American languages also have specific treaty protections in force.

Another thing I'll say here, mhpine, because I think this gets at the nub of our own disagreement here-- it has to do, I suspect, with very different experiences and cultural histories. As you say, your family came as refugees from persecution and Europe in Europe to an already-established and urbanized United States, so it was natural for you to be anxious to join in with what felt like, in your case, to be the majority culture of the place that took you in.

The history for me and my native American and Latino brethren is in many ways the opposite. We *were* the original inhabitants here, my Cherokee ancestors have been here for many millennia before Anglos set foot, and to us, the Anglos were not the people providing the refuge-- they *were* the people persecuting us, just as, for example, the Russian czars would have been the persecutors of your ancestors. Our own villages and towns were brutally invaded and burned to the ground by Anglo attackers, our people sent on death marches in the Trail of Tears, massacred by the tens of thousands at Wounded Knee and Sand Creek.

One of the most common and concerted ways in which the US government tried to break us as a people, was to refuse to allow us to use our languages for official purposes and in the public sphere. Obviously we spoke Cherokee at home, but in the schools, teachers and principals would beat us and humiliate us for speaking our own ancient Cherokee tongue. We could not print ballots or official government documents in our Cherokee language, we could not perform courthouse proceedings or marriages in it, we could not even print directions for taking medications in Cherokee.

So, as you can see, deliberate suppression of our language as a tool for public discourse was a very specific and often utilized method of many Anglos to break our own identity and sense of ourselves, to break us as a unified people with an ancestry and culture stretching back millennia before the Anglos entered this territory. A number of other Anglos tried a similar sort of thing against Latinos when the Mexican Territory, Florida and even Puerto Rico were invaded. However, both native American tribes and Latinos fought back against this intensely, and that's one of the reasons why the US government eventually relented and signed treaties that formally recognized the special status of our languages as vehicles of public communication-- well-established here well before the Anglos arrived, and thus "founder languages" of the nation alongside English to be used for official purposes.

I've read a good deal about the oppression that Eastern Europeans and Jews in particular had to endure from their governments and angry mobs during the Ellis Island period, I respect that and understand your reasons for fleeing such persecution. However, when you inveigh against the use of our own founding languages in the public sphere, it appears to us that even as you have fled one group of oppressors in Europe, you have merely joined with another group of oppressors (our oppressors, in particular) here in North America, the ones who would seek to deny us our most fundamental links to our culture. There's a reason that the treaties recognized our languages for the public as much as the private sphere, because that extra status and incentive are powerful assistants to help language and culture retention, something upon which we insisted. We're not going to allow those rights to be denied or curtailed.

On balance, I just don't find the issue of multiple public languages to be a very big deal. I've traveled to many countries, most of which are bilingual or multilingual, and the vast majority do just fine. As I mentioned in an example before, Britain is a multilingual country, with Welsh in particular being a very important language in western Britain, but the British people do just fine overall. Likewise, Breton is an important language in much of France but doesn't cause problems. Aboriginal languages in Australia are important public tongues, and the Maori language is fundamental to the very identity of New Zealand. Many people in the Netherlands speak Frisian and it has official status. Lappish is spoken in much of Scandinavia. Finnish and Swedish are both important in Finland. All of these countries do just fine.

It's important to note that neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence mention anything about an official language, nor should they. As far as unifying aspects, I just don't think that language, any language, is the best way to draw us together here. (History backs this up-- the US Civil War, after all, was a bloody conflict, the most violent in our nation's history, waged by two groups of predominantly English-speaking Protestants against each other.) Likewise, many Canadians speak English but manifestly do not consider themselves Americans. What draws us together are a shared set of ideals and values. This is why, despite the painful history of my own tribe here, I still consider myself a proud American. We will still retain and publicly use our language, we insist upon that. But what makes me *feel* American is not speaking English (which I can obviously do without problems), what makes me feel American are the ideals of the American people and the pursuit of betterness espoused in the efforts of the Founding Fathers and, frankly, by people like yourself who have come here. Those ideals can be expressed in many languages.

"Privileging one immigrant language over another because of events that took place over 150 years ago is nonsensical. "

Well, we can easily turn your argument around and ask the question, why should English get a special status over other languages here in North America? After all, English was very much an "immigrant language" itself when there were hundreds of native American tribes around, flourishing with their own languages. Why haven't the Anglos assimilated to speak, say, Iroquois? Why should events of 300 years ago give English a precedence over Iroquois, which had an established presence before? The fact of the matter is that some languages here do have special statuses. English is one of them. But the native American languages are another, due in large part to the treaties. Spanish is another language with such special status, again due to the treaties and a variety of other laws and negotiations that took place in the aftermath of the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. As I'll explain below, this is in part a result of a flaw in your premise-- Spanish and the native American languages, along with English, are spoken by many immigrants but they are also *founding languages* themselves in the territory that has become the United States, present and widespread well before this nation formed in 1776. That's why they have a special, legally protected status themselves.

One major qualitative difference that sets apart Spanish and the native American languages, is that most immigrant European languages were brought *into the US* by people from e.g. Lithuania and Armenia, or Yiddish-speakers like yourself, decades and centuries after the US was already well-established as a separate nation. In sharp contrast, it was the opposite direction for the native American languages and for Spanish, which were *established languages* in regions into which US Anglos moved by force. That's one of the reasons that those languages were protected by treaties. So again, to re-emphasize, it's somewhat of a misnomer to call native American languages and Spanish "immigrant languages" at all. They are languages that are native to the territory of the United States. Of course, many current immigrants to the US are Spanish-speakers, just as many immigrants are English-speakers from places like Australia or Zimbabwe. But the fact is, Spanish and English are still both unique in that they were founding languages of what now constitutes the US landmass well before the US itself became a distinct nation. When the US waged the Mexican War and annexed Florida and Puerto Rico, the treaties and accords were well aware of this and therefore gave Spanish its special status. Native American languages, as I said before, also have this status.

I do see your point here about public vs. private spheres, but this is where we fundamentally disagree. Nobody's arguing about people's speech in their private spheres, it's the public marketplace that is the focus of the debate. That's what I'm saying here-- those treaty guarantees and the particular histories of Spanish, English and the native American tongues endow all those languages with a special status that makes them important languages *of the public sphere* as well as the private sphere. Spanish is a native, official and public language of the United States just as much as English is, as are the native American languages.

I do respect your own personal history and your own ideas here, but I feel you're conflating things that you need to keep more separate. A certain subset of languages in the US are *founding languages* and therefore have this special regard, and yes, it indeed does mean that Spanish, English and native American languages enjoy a manner of legal recognition and status that immigrant languages of people coming in during, say, the Ellis Island period do not have.

Hmm, interesting. In my own little corner of Cardiff, seemed as if *everyone* was speaking Cymraeg, including the young'uns. S4C was getting good ratings, the pubs had placards in Cymraeg, Radio Cymru was all about. The 1 in 5 number surprises me, as it was two Welsh fellows at a pub who'd mentioned higher numbers, though it's been a while and perhaps they were referring not to fluent Welsh-speakers but to people who had been making a concerted attempt to speak and use Cymraeg but were not fluent. IOW, folks who did not use Cymraeg as a primary means of communication but were working on improving it and could speak it to some extent.

Interesting. Thanks for the information.

I found this link which suggests the one in 5 figure may be open to debate, but here's the money quote:

The most convenient source of statistics to hand is a survey published by the Welsh Office, Arolwg Cymdeithasol Cymru 1992: adroddiad ar y Gymraeg published about March 1995. It showed that 21.5% of the population of Wales (590800 people) speak Welsh; this divides into 32.4% of 3-15 year olds, 17.8% of 16-29s, 16.7% of 30-44s, 18.7% of 45-64s and 24.2% of over 65s. 55.3% of them (326600, 12% of the population) are first-language speakers, meaning someone who spoke more Welsh than English as a child at home. 13.4% of the population of Wales claims to be fluent in Welsh, and 66.1% claim no knowledge of Welsh at all.

Also important:

"There are almost certainly no monoglot Welsh speakers"

You are also missing a point. I could replace the Polish kid with a Haitian or Sudanese. Members of these groups have been shipped back to onerous circumstances in their native countries. Trying to sell your assurances that the Polish student won't be shipped back will fall on deaf ears. My co-worker will still have the "sense" ( that you feel is ill-founded that the student will be harmed). I'm not an immigration lawyer so I really don't know which one of you is correct on where the student will wind up.
What I do know, given the current political climate, is that your message will be a hard sell. I'll be wondering about the Haitian and he'll bwe wondering about the Polish kid and we'll both be asking why Mexicans get amnesty. The best solution to this is to say, yes, the immigration process is fouled up for the Polish kid, Mexicans and Haitians and that the party that is more capable of dealing with a beaurocracy and trying to make it fairer is the Democratic party.
Just point out how pathetic Bush looks when he stands next to Vincente Fox as Fox tells Bush that he'll let him know how many Mexicans Fox thinks should cross the border. If you can't see that Fox and Bush are both idiots who are able to take advantage of poor people on both sides of the border, I can't help you. This is a classic situation, all groups feel abused. By realizing that there are a multitude of hurting people in the world, and that the US wants to be as fair as it can to everyone without taking advantage of people (every Black person had a job during slavery. that didn't make it a shining economic model)
Yes the Polish student does have a college degree so he is in the best position, but a Mexican is in a better position than a Haitian who is dodging bullets and sees starvation as a real possibility. Think of immigration globally, not just locally. The Haitian who gets an oppurtunity to have a full belly and no flying bullets may wind up as a scientist who makes strides in solving the energy crisis-you never know.
Look I'm just saying my feel of the country is that the party that apears to be addressing immigration in it's entirety will be in the best position. I think that at the core Democrats see government as capable of helping people improve ther lot.
While the GOP sees governments as a neccessary evil required mainly for defense and protecting commerce.
A Democratic approach that is fair to Mexicans who are hard workers, a Polish student who seems to be a hard worker, Haitians who from the way they have built a strong community in NYC and elsewhere have been shown to be hard workers when given the chance, is the best solution
What do we call the people who filed the proper paperwork and were shipped back ,or who came on crafts from Haiti and were sent back as others get amnesty-Suckers?

If the point is that the Welsh are proud of their cultural heritage, and retaining the language is part of the pride and therefore is something of a political act 1 in 5 is enough to keep that flame alive.

Right but alternatively if the point was that Hispanic immigrants should be allowed to favor Spanish over English - because that's what the Welsh do - then the argument by analogy is belied by the numbers.

(Note I'm not saying that Hispanics shouldn't be allowed to favor Spanish. Merely that the Welsh situation cannot accurately be used to bolster that position)

I guess I'm not sure what's being argued here (maybe I've been too sloppy in following the thread).  Obviously, there are tremendous advantages in not being monolingual if you speak a minority language, and just as obviously, Hispanics have every right to speak Spanish.  But if the question is about co-opting the National Anthem as a way to express pride in your dual identity, I think the analogy holds in a way.  Welsh (and the other Celtic languages in the UK) is gaining speakers because it is a way to express cultural pride, and in this sense, being one of a small number of Welsh speakers is a kind of political act.  (I imagine there are a larger number of people, say, who can sing certain songs in Welsh even if they don't speak it anymore, for the same reason.)  That all those who trace their roots to Wales don't speak Welsh is kind of irrelevant - some of them are favoring the language as an expression of identity.  Same with Spanish here, I think, at least insofar as the anthem brouhaha is concerned.

I would never use the term uppity Hispanics. Uppity would be a fighting word for me and for them , I think. I was not blaming Hispanics for anything. You and I can personally feel that a Spanish national anthem is no big deal.
We can cite examples of GW and Laura Bush very likely having sung a Spanish version of the national anthem. That well reasoned point would not overcome any sense of unease that many people felt as signs suggesting amnesty were cared by some members of a largely Hispanic group. I am not blaming Hispanics. i am just reflecting comments heard as people taked about the demonstartion (as peaceful as it was)
Maybe I can make my point better this way. we live in a sound bite and media age. MSM loves to provide controversy. So while there are many event organizers who would argue that there needs to be a mechanism put into place to allow for citizenship for immigrants who have been here for "X" number of years. There are others who want blanket amnesty. Gues which point of view will likely be played more by MSM as videoclips of the event are shown in the future. controversy sells. From that great media saavy newspaper reporter in the movie Liberty Valence "when the legend becomes fact. print the legend". The amnesty part becomes the issue.
The way to counteract this is to just say immigration reform needs to address problems that everyone is facing. It is harder to fight that type of program. If there are more Hispanic applicants so be it. If there is an amnesty program and it is equally applied so be it.
I am not for denying any Hispanic person anything. But if you truly think that the American public in general didn't see the May 1st events as Hispanic you really are wearing rose colored glasses. I was just making what I thought were points that could be used to blunt a possible attack on immigration reform by deliberately making it appear to be equalled applied in equal situations.
If you think a more aggressive approach will work, then have at it.
And please in the future don't put words like uppity into my mouth, it is particularly distasteful.

Bilingualism also enhances the possibility for puns. In Mexico some years back a fellow was boasting to me about his "perfect" command of English. He said once, when he was working on a ranch in the US, he took the initiative to learn English in the evenings while the rest of the crew partied. He was soon chosen by default to be the official communicator with the English speaking foreman. One day another campesino came up to him with a complaint that he had worked a full week but only got paid for four days. So the man I was talking with went to the foreman and said: "Seben days que working for you, you pagame quatro, tripas no!"

Of course you have to know that "tripas" (tripe) is a humorous word in Sonora.  And the construction is like "three (tri), well (pas), no.  So who could possibly be against bilingual puns?

Neoboho

Whatever the question was, thanks for your contribution (I was curious what the numbers were, myself).

That makes discussion a bit more difficult, IMO, and is liable to lead us to Sigmund Freud (egad!)

Nice piece on Freud and politics in the Times Magazine last week that's semi-relevant.  (And to go further off topic, have you ever noticed that the only people who seem to take Freud seriously anymore are English professors?)

please in the future don't put words like uppity into my mouth, it is particularly distasteful.

I didn't mean to personally offend by the use of the term "uppity". But I did use it advisedly as I think the same old notions about demonstrating African Americans not knowing their place, are playing at least some role in the way Hispanics are being regarded ever since the immigration protests took off.

And the question your friend asked about why a Polish student could get deported while Mexicans asked for amnesty seemed an echo of that.

That doesn't mean everyone who questions an amnesty is a racist. I just don't know anyone who's asking an amnesty that would favor Hispanics at the expense of Poles which is what that question seemed to imply. Since the question had little basis in logic, I think it's open to speculation that it might have had a basis in something less wholesome.

I was just making what I thought were points that could be used to blunt a possible attack on immigration reform by deliberately making it appear to be equalled applied in equal situations.

This is where I got lost. It seemed to me the law was being equally applied, its just that the situations offered were not at all analogous. If there are Mexican students who are allowed to overstay their visas while the Poles are packed onto a slow boat home then we've got a problem. If Mexicans are allowed to demonstrate for amnesty but Poles who do so are getting dragged off the streets again we have a problem. As far as I know this isn't happening.

if you truly think that the American public in general didn't see the May 1st events as Hispanic you really are wearing rose colored glasses

I'm really not sure where you got that from. I'm not arguing that the demos have not been largely presented as Hispanic, I'm just arguing that if someone has the misapprehension that Hispanics are getting favorable treatment as opposed to other ethnicities then we should start by correcting that misapprehension as opposed to figuring out how to get people who think that way to vote Democrat.

The way to counteract this is to just say immigration reform needs to address problems that everyone is facing. It is harder to fight that type of program. If there are more Hispanic applicants so be it. If there is an amnesty program and it is equally applied so be it.

To me this is not controversial, except in the sense that it appears to address a problem that as I've said many times now I don't think actually exists.

Are you actually saying there are calls for a non-equal amnesty program? If so please cite them and I might be able to understand what it is that's causing this concern.

Thus far I see an argument that we should pander to the ill-informed by pretending to agree that a non-existant problem must be urgently addressed. If that's the argument I'll have to decline my support for it. If that's not the argument, please help me see what I'm missing.

Obtuse as I am, I'm still not clear on whether or not you are personally concerned about calls for unequal treatment of ethnicities for immigration purposes, or whether you're just saying the problem is there's a perception that such calls for inequality exist. And that if that's not addressed then Democrats will lose votes

If I could pin that down this discussion might possibly be (have been) more constructive, but with respect I think you've been extremely evasive on the point. (Never more so than with your last comment)

If you think your friend has a point with his ill thought out "why this student would likely be shipped back to Poland while the May 1st demonstraters were asking for amnesty?" question I'd like to hear your arguments for it. If you don't why can't you acknowledge it was a pretty dumb thing to say?

I agree with the obtuse comment. As I stated perception is reality. The GOP has made a killing on this point.
You can consider what the guy said as asking for a double standard and go off and trash him. Or you can address his concern in a manner that costs you nothing by stating that all applicants for immigration are held to the same yardstick. Address the perception and move on.
I have tried to be as clear as I can that the current situation is really taking advantage of poor people across a color spectrum. Putting in statements that say everyone is being treated te same.
As to what offends me
1) Not having a higher minimum wage that would help poor Americans and immigrants be able to feed their families
2) Continuing to have poor education remaining the norm in schools attended by mostly lower income people. and having a sham program No Child Left Behind created to gloss over the failures that continue
3) Having American citizens in NOLA starving for days in the richest country in the world as TV reporters and movie stars were able to bring more aid and info than our government.
4) Having immigrants willing to work for lower wages being used as pawns in the NOLA clean up effort
5) The fact that many Americans are willing to support their lifestyle by paying low wages to people willing to do their lawn care and infant care, work in their restaurants and ignore the impact on US citizens, and the fact that it places no pressure on a corrupt government in Mexico
Those are a few of the things that upset me
Other things that upset me
6) The fact that my co-worker friend voted for GW the first time
7) The fact that he is only now coming to grips with what an idiot GW is
8) The fact that I have to address his concern about unev immigration policices
9) The fact that you don't realize that perception is reality and that the folks asking for amnesty will become the poster children for the May 1st demonstrations
10) having the words uppity Hispanics put in my mouth
11) Having the same person who said I used the word uppity, now imply that I made a dumb statement
Maybe I just see so much crap to be upset about on a weekly basis that I only have time to be REALLY upset about the first 4. Am willing to judge #5 as human nature and situational ethics that could be altered with legislation once immigration is put in order to verify who is hiring who.
#6-11 I'm willing to let roll off my back becaiuse I just don't have the time.
If this doesn't satisfy you about my hearing the Polish comment, realizing that it could be easily addressed without bashing him over the head with a two by four, or yelling rascist rascist.I can't help you
The president McCain comment is about who will be President if we don't know when to launch a frontal assault on a person and when to leada person where he wanted to end up anyway, without either of us losing face.

Having the same person who said I used the word uppity...

Come on. That's simply false. I never said you used the word uppity. I said the arguments used against Mexican demonstraters had echoes of those used against African Americans - as inferiors who didn't know their place.

you can address his concern in a manner that costs you nothing by stating that all applicants for immigration are held to the same yardstick.

That was *my* argument - we aren't disagreeing on that. My position was that where we encounter ignorance we should counter it, not pander to it. I gained the impression you thought if we didn't pander to it we'd be ushering in President McCain.

In fact, you never gave any impression you attempted to correct your friend. You strongly gave the impression you agreed with him. I've asked you repeatedly if you *do* agree with him, and for reasons best known to yourself you have presistently avoided the question.

We are left with a puzzle - you claim to argue for reasoning GOP voters out of positions which apparently you yourself hold. As an electoral strategem this takes flip-flopping into the next dimension. Hello President McCain!

If this doesn't satisfy you about my hearing the Polish comment, realizing that it could be easily addressed without bashing him over the head with a two by four, or yelling rascist rascist I can't help you

Why don't you reread my initial response to the comment. It was a calm reasoned rebuttal to the notion that Latinos get preferential treatment under the immigration laws. If you consider that the equivalent of yelling "racist" and beating someone about the head then *I* cannot help *you*.

The confusion seems to be the belief that because I think there may be racist undertones to the illogical question your friend asked that I am promoting accusations of racism as an electoral manifesto.

We are not typing up a Democratic Electoral platform here. We're discussing issues. I believe it is legitimate to argue that we should try to counter false arguments with logic. At the same time, on a liberal forum I also think we can consider the possibility that certain portions of anti-immigrant sentiment have some grounding in prejudice.