The English Only Movement - Essay Example

Sur Us versus Them: Americans have always prided themselves on being a tolerate lot. At thebase of the Statue of Liberty is the proud invitation to the “huddled masses,” whoever they might be. There’s even a “Museum of Tolerance” in downtown Washington, D.C. But the truth is, our history reminds us that we are very often not tolerate at all of those who are different than we are, whomever “we” might be. Unfortunately, although the “English Only” movement enjoys a great deal of popularity in the polls, support for its ideas and enforcement falls dramatically when the concept is discussed among ethnic groups, particularly among Latinos (Carnes 5) It is true that the English Only movement enjoys a great deal of mainstream support, but upon closer examination, much of the basis for this support falls apart. In fact, not only is it difficult to find arguments that provide a stable basis for these arguments, but there is considerable difficulty when trying to decide who those are who are actually promoting the concept. The truth is, virtually all of the arguments that are put forth in the “English Only” effort fall by the wayside when held to the scrutiny of truth. This fact is only supported by the notion advanced in Jim Carnes’ Us and Them: A History of Intolerance in America. This book Surname 2 illustrates 14 cases of intolerance based on several biases against race, religion, and sexual orientation. And while language issues might play a part in the arguments advanced by those in the majority, it is not the primary issue. In fact, as Crawford points out, there is virtual no evidence that in any of the usual propositions advanced in favor of “English Only” that are demonstrably true. By comparison, there is a considerable amount of research showing that the ideas are false. An example of this is the idea that immigrants do not want to learn English, when studies have shown conclusively that by the third generation of these immigrants, their native language normally falls unused and vanishes (Crawford 6). As a study in intolerance, the case of effort to promote English Only legislation and fan the flames of that notion should be included in the issues discussed by Carnes. The truth is, although intolerance based on language discrimination is just as much an issue as that of any other type of intolerance. The truth is, although in some cases, the matter of language might rear its head in other types of discrimination, in other cases, it might come to the forefront. An example of this might be when dealing with discrimination against Hispanic populations, the language barrier is there, but race might be the true point. In other populations where the discrimination might be less centered on skin color but more on language would be the problems of German or Polish immigrants, where these populations might fade into the masses based on skin color and/or culture, but language divisions would remain. Regardless of how intolerance is justified, whether it be on the basis of sex, race or any other division, or language, it is still intolerance, plain and simple Surname 3 In Essay 2, a reading of “Sympathy and Empathy in Cross-Cultural Communication” by Milton Bennett, taken from the edited volume, Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected Reading, directs the reader’s attention to the difference between to concepts of sympathy and empathy as exe4rcised by most people. Unfortunately, these manners are normally quite different. Sympathy, as described by Bennett, is “the imaginative placing of ourselves in another person’s position.” Empathy, on the other hand, is described by the same author as “standing in another person’s shoes, an intense sympathy,” which he implies is more emotionally intense and personal than the first sympathy. It is this acquired sympathetic state that Bennett believes makes empathy the key to successful cross-cultural communication. With this argument in mind, the two letters are presented would argue the issues of division in the case of Leo Frank, the northern Jewish businessman who was lynched in 1915 after the governor of George commuted the sentence of death given to him by a jury after he was convicted of murdering a factory worker in his supervision, a 13-year-old named Mary Phagan.(Carnes 66-75) The first letter is that pro-death sentence: Ladies and Gentlemen: An ideal that all of us, regardless of race, religion, or any other factor involved, that we as Americans hold sacred is the concept of equal justice under law, and the supremacy of the rule of law. This is the case with the defendant, Mr. Leo Frank, who has been convicted of this murder, regardless of the questionable nature of the evidence or circumstances involved. The central question at this stage of the argument is whether Governor John F. Slaton has the authority to commute the sentence as he has. Surname 4 Regardless of how anyone feels about the conviction of Mr. Frank, whether he be guilty of the crime or not, his sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment under the authority of a lawfully elected governor who has the power to grant such a commutation. Without the authority of the rule of law over all of us, America is nothing more than a mob, which is subject to the whims of person or group who wishes to impose his or her beliefs on another. This is not what the American justice system is about. It’s about the authority of law, not lynch mobs, whomever that subject might be, and whatever his character in the sight of the public at large. The letter following is a counterpoint to the letter above: Ladies and Gentlemen: Our Constitution holds that whenever there is found a system of government that is better for the people than the system outlined by the founding fathers, that system should supercede the existing order. Such is the case with Mr. Leo Frank, who has been legally convicted of the crime of murder by a jury of his peers, just as the law promises. Despite this, no system has proven to be superior to that rule of law. It is for this reason that Governor John F. Slaton has no authority to arbitrarily deem the proceedings as a miscarriage of justice and invalidate the verdict of death Are we a society of the ruling elite or of law? This contrast was placed before the founding fathers when they established this country. It’s the rule of law, the decision of the jury that matters and guides the fate of people like Mr. Frank. Nothing more, nothing less. Surname 5 Works Cited Carnes, Jim, Herbert Tauss, Justice Harry A. Blackmun. Us and Them: A History of Intolerance in America. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999. Crawford, Jim. “Anatomy of the English-Only Movement” At War with Diversity. Clevedon, U.K. : Multilingual Matters. 2000. Bennett, Milton. “Sympathy and Empathy in Cross-Cultural Communication,” Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected Reading, Milton Bennett, ed. Yarmouth, Maine: Interncultural Press Inc. 1998. Read More