Travel back in time about 200 years, or perhaps as far back as that U.S. government class you took freshman year. One of the great things about Americans -- John Jay comments in "The Federalist Papers" -- is their background. "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion ... similar in their manners and customs."
Except only about 60 percent of Anglos in the country at that time were English. From the very start, the diverse America our elementary school teachers preached was actually built on the imposition of one modified culture upon all others, argues foreign policy analyst Benjamin Schwarz.
Welcome to the state of Arizona in 2005, decades after Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 1970s and the spread of political correctness. And yet intolerance and cultural disregard remain alive in the Arizona House of Representatives.
Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, along with five other legislators introduced an English-only bill reiterating English as the official language of Arizona.
If it gains enough support, it may appear on the 2006 ballot. English is already declared the official language on the state constitution. But if passed, this bill would affect public meetings and publications (such as Motor Vehicle Division driving manuals and water bills).
Anything federally mandated would be left alone -- voter information would still be available in an alternate language, for instance. Finding it "unnecessary" and a waste of taxpayers' dollars, Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, notes: "Instead of focusing on real issues, we're focusing on this. What exactly are we trying to accomplish?"
The bill itself, with all of its constraints and limited power, wouldn't push people into English fluency. It also serves as a contradiction in our own state. With English as a Second Language programs in the state being drastically underfunded, Gallardo observes, "We're not going to spend the money to help them learn it, at the same time we're telling them to learn it."
Rather it sends a simple but strong message to all those speaking foreign languages. In a state where 25 percent of the population is Hispanic -- an ethnic group known for strong language ties -- its message is not only against language but against culture as well.
Perhaps to a degree, it might be unintended. But when a group's native tongue is cast under such a negative light, it makes that language seem unwanted and somehow lower -- the less attractive choice. This is where the notion of bilingual terrorism begins.
By undermining such an integral part of a group, you undermine their confidence. It becomes so much more than an issue of language but rather a cultural complex.
We see this in our own recent history. In the 20th century, forced assimilation programs pushed one language and created ideas of inferiority in the imposed. Attitudes about their own background and the social system were understandably affected.
It's about so much more than speaking English simply because we're in the United States. Respect for culture and diversity are at the heart of the issue.
Instead of following the past -- allowing these unspoken but ever-present pushes toward assimilation -- we should open ourselves to acculturation. Different languages and cultures can coexist if we let them. If we abandon xenophobic legislative actions, we draw closer to the ideal of that truly wonderful, diverse United States.
The English-only bill will not suddenly create a population that is fluent in English, nor will it suddenly inspire more people to learn English. Those who would learn it are already doing so. It really is just a useless act, resembling the 1988 English-only law the state Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. Yet behind it lies the ability to alienate and divide our state.
Rosie Cisneros is a political science and journalism junior. Reach her at rosie.cisneros@asu.edu.
