Loading ...
¿Por qué es esto en español?
- Filed under: Uncategorized
- Date: Jun 10,2008
Hoy en día, un grupo de bloggers de Ohio es la publicación en una lengua extranjera como una sutil protesta a Ohio HB 477. El proyecto de ley requeriría "la utilización del idioma Inglés de Estado y de entidades del gobierno local en actos oficiales y los procedimientos". La protesta fue organizada por la Ohio blog escribe igual que habla, que tiene una lista completa de otros blogs que participan en Ohio. El propósito de todos estos sitios de blogs en un idioma diferente es mostrar cómo los lectores de exclusión HB 477. Me han elegido para publicar en español el mío porque es el idioma que la mayoría de estos proyectos de ley están destinados a meta.
47 Responses for "¿Por qué es esto en español?"
Today, a group of Ohio bloggers is posting in a foreign language as a subtle protest to Ohio HB 477. The bill would require "the use of the English language by state and local government entities in official actions and proceedings." The protest was organized by the Ohio blog Writes Like She Talks, which has a complete list of other blogs participating in Ohio. The purpose of all these sites blogging in a different language is to show readers how exclusionary HB 477 is. I have chosen to post mine in Spanish because it is the language that most of these bills are intended to target.
For the record, I am not part of this protest. I have no problem with the bill. I would not go other places and expect to have things catered to me in English if it was not the native language. If you live here maybe you should learn English.
Ohio and for that matter, The United States, should make English the official language.
[...] Kyle @ Ohio Politics (Spanish) [...]
couldn't agree more ben. This is a silly protest.
Ben –
Why do you say that English is the native language? Ohio is an Iroquois word. Akron, the largest city in the area where you lives, is from Greek — meaning high point. The state capitol is Columbus, named for the Italian sea captain who told Europeans about this continent, which they named ater an Italian mapmaker. The word America does not have its roots in English. And Many states have native American names — Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, Michigan and Iowa come to mind besides Ohio. Others have Spanish names — Florida, Colorado, California. The 2nd and third largest U.S. cities do not have English names — Los Angeles and Chicago. I don't believe English is our native language. It is our adopted language. It is a great language, a comfortable and useful language, but it is neither the best nor worse language. And it is not the USA's "native" language. English comes from England, and very few Americans are natives of England. English is not even the native language of the British Isles, as you must certainly know. They also have Welsh and Celtic and perhaps some other tongues of which I'm unaware.
Okay……bad choice of words, I should have said "dominant language."
[...] Kyle @ Ohio Politics (Spanish) [...]
Kyle, an interesting idea for your post today, one which stirs strong feelings among many Americans.
Personally,I feel language is a unifying factor and hope that all immigrants have the opportunity to learn English and support public school programs that teach English to nonspeakers. The advantages are obvious and not really necessary to discuss. It seems to me that learning to speak English would encourage more participation in most aspects of our society and encourage the speaker to feel more
"american" however you define that. When you look at all the places in the world where language is a divisive factor rather than a unifying one, learning to speak the most dominate language would be a plus. It seems very impractical and costly to try to conduct official business more than one language, let alone 10 or 15.
My guess is that your ancestors came to this country and learned English, as did millions and millions of other immigrants. Have expectations for moving to a new homeland changed that much?
[...] The Chief Source (Spanish) at The Point [...]
Anne, you wrote, "My guess is that your ancestors came to this country and learned English, as did millions and millions of other immigrants. Have expectations for moving to a new homeland changed that much?"
Nope - not at all. And that is exactly why we don't need the law.
Ben - it is that word precisely, "dominant" that makes this law so abhorrent. If it is in fact the dominant language, then there is not need for a law that seeks to legislate that claim.
For the record, Meckleborg and others would get more respect if they just said what they really wanted and worked toward their goals in an upfront way. It is this ridiculousness of claiming one thing when you want something else that infuriates voters, from both sides. And yes - you should feel free to point out when it's being done by Democrats.
We put our names and faces on our blogs and comments because we stand by what we say. The same should be said for legislators: they should be saying and owning what it is they really want. That is not what this bill is about and I resent having my state's legislative body used in the way Mecklenborg is trying to use it.
I have been working on a long rebuttal to your post but my effortsw arecbetter spent elsehwere. Why? When a blogger that opposes this legislation asks what kind of human would legislate TORTURING others this way it is time to move on.
[...] The Chief Source (Spanish) at The Point [...]
Angry - those are my words not Kyle's. So come on back and debate with him anytime.
As for me, having done a fair amount of traveling in countries where I couldn't always find what I needed in English, it sometimes felt like torture. I was 22 years old traveling by myself with pretty much no money (my money was stolen from my backpack, while it was on me, two days before I left the Middle East to backpack and Eurorail through Europe).
I think to myself what it must be like to be deaf, or blind and sometimes be unable to navigate because there are no accommodations, or inadequate accommodations.
Likewise, if the language alludes you.
Should everyone who wants to function at their maximum in this country learn and be fluent in English? You bet.
Is the language of English something which needs legal protection?
Absolutely not.
Ha! Make that "if the language ELUDES you"
Wow - good thing I'm not an ESL professional.
All ya all kiss my English only speaking ass!
Jill,
I have been in countries where I had little to no grasp of the language. It is difficult, as I'm sure Kyle can attest to. The difference between a situation where you are a tourist and a resident expecting/demanding services in a language other than the lingua franca is night and day. Getting help in a tourist area in Spanish, French, or Japanese? Sure. Getting taxpayer-funded social services (at additional costs) in those languages? No.
All you have to do is look north to Canada to see the problems that bilingualism and bi-culturalism has and will continue to cause.
Don't understand there buddy. I prefer to communicate in something I do though. English.
When I travel to foreign countries it's a real pain buying things with American money, sometimes.
It is a travesty that some immigrants have to trade in their pesos while others don't have electrical outlets that will work for their hair dryers.
Different is good, people. Stop being so afraid.
People should remember that we have lots of legal immigrants in this country too. It is important for them to understand basic government documents and services so that they can start to become a part of our culture instead of being closed out.
I am so tired of silly liberals saying any opposition to this is from fear. grow up JIll and get a clue
Farleigh - you go first - what are your "clues" that this kind of legislation and "logic" isn't driven by fear? What, exactly, drives it?
Really, the 'fear of the Other' argument is preachy and divisive and doesn't get anyone anywher. Couldn't someone just as easily argue the protest is driven by fear of white men, possibly stemming from some sort of Oedipal issues in the home?
The language debate is really a non-issue. These are bureaucratic rules and bureaucrats will do whatever makes their job easier. When there's too many Spanish speakers clogging the system, they'll start printing things up in Spanish and hiring Spanish speakers to keep the lines moving, no matter what the law is.
On the other hand, the English language is going to change whether it's legislated "official" or not.
Larry - no bureaucrats asked for this bill. A legislator decided that it was necessary. There are agencies that have outright opposed it and have said as much.
Fear of the other is preachy? Hmm. That's so funny you say that. I think claiming that because English is spoken by more people than anyone else, and that it's the "dominant" language therefore it needs to be declared such sounds preachy.
I know bureaucrats didn't ask for this legislation and that's precisely my point. No matter what the lawmakers decide, the bureaucrats are going to do what they need to do to process us citizens (and soon-to-be citizens).
I do agree that declaring English official is silly and can't see why anyone cares about either side of this issue.
But of course the 'fear' argument is preachy. It's meant to show some kind of intellectual superiority but it's usually just a knee jerk reaction when the user can't think of a decent argument. All it does is irritate the accused.
Larry - you are getting a little out there for me, but just to try to bring it back down: I think you've double-helixed my saying that I believe that people like Mecklenborg are trying to tap into and increase a sense of fear that folks like him connect with related to xenophobia in certain more homogeneous communities - probably just like Mecklenborg's community.
So - I'm not wielding fear or preaching it. I'm saying that I believe that Mecklenborg is manipulating people who possess some fear about the inevitability of diversity brought on by being an open society and allowing immigration. When people use phrases like needing to protect our language or preserve our language, we are using them based on an assumption that that there is a danger; assuming there's a danger means that you have a fear about something that is…endangering you, or, in this case, egads - foreign language is endangering us! (sarcasm)
So - that's the element of fearmongering by Mecklenborg and others who think this strain of legislation has any value that I'm pointing to.
It's entirely unfounded and to the extent that Mecklenborg is being preachy, I completely agree and thought that that's why he and other supporters hate so-called "nanny" laws - but they can't seem to get enough of Phil Burress and others.
Hope that explains it a bit better but if not, well - there's always more cyberspace.
[...] The Chief Source (Spanish) at the point [...]
Any law is meant to regulate or mitigate a danger of some sort, isn't it? Those who like the law see that danger. Those who don't, see the law itself as a danger. Thus, "fear" is a term that can be used in regard to an opponent's stance on any issue.
Of course when someone uses that term they're placing themselves in a position of being the opponent's psychoanalyst and/or intellectual superior. It's a tired strategy.
In this case, you seem to be saying anyone who disagrees with you is a racist stemming from their unsophisticated roots in homogeneous hick towns. Now whose mind do you think that will change?
Aren't there practical reasons that English should not be the "official" language? What is the "danger" from your side?
Jill,
"Protecting our langauge" is exactly the goal of groups like LaRaza.
Do you wish to pay more in taxes to open a parallel civil service system for non-English speakers?
Que?
Larry wrote: "ou seem to be saying anyone who disagrees with you is a racist stemming from their unsophisticated roots in homogeneous hick towns. Now whose mind do you think that will change?"
That's your interpretation Larry and I'd say it's very extreme in addition to being wrong.
Larry wrote: "Aren't there practical reasons that English should not be the "official" language? What is the "danger" from your side?
Larry - I don't need to find a danger. The burden is on the legislator and the folks seeking the legislation.
Alaskan - I'm not familiar with LaRaza.
Also, you wrote, "Do you wish to pay more in taxes to open a parallel civil service system for non-English speakers?"
Is there evidence that that's about to happen? Is that the basis of Mecklenborg's bill? Did he proffer such stats?
"That's your interpretation … and you're wrong."
Wow that's weak, Jill. Can't you come up with some more fancy words like homogeneous?
Larry - you have no interest in anything I write. You know it and I know it.
I conserve my parries for attacks worth blockin - yours don't rate an effort at this point - you write to read what you have to say - not because you actually care to learn, engage or otherwise be constructive.
When you write as if you care, let me know.
As for interpreting that as meaning I have nothing to back up my assertion, let me direct you to all the threads in which people rolled their eyes at the sexism in the Dem primary, begging me to point it out, what do you mean, you're whining, it's not there and so on.
Now, check out how the equally racist crap that's showing up is now getting that eye roll treatment from Republicans and other non-Obama supporters while those of us who know it's racism are being asked, "What do you mean it's racism? How is it racism? Explain to me why you think it's racist."
If you don't realize that an English-only bill is wrong on all the levels described in this thread and at the Blogging in Tongues nineteen posts? Then you don't get it. There's nothing to add.
I'm just wondering why people who obviously spend a lot of effort thinking about politics waste their time on an issue like this.
To me, the whole thing seems like an excuse for libs to call conservatives ignorant racists, and for conservatives to call liberals anti-American.
Larry, you wrote, "I'm just wondering why people who obviously spend a lot of effort thinking about politics waste their time on an issue like this."
That is a FANTASTIC question for Ohio State Rep. Mecklenborg who is taking taxpayer dollars as his pay for his work in the Ohio General Assembly as someone elected by constituents in his district.
Why indeed would State Rep Mecklenborg who obviously spends a lot of effort thinking about politics, seeing as how he is an elected official and politicians, waste his time on an issue like this?
Let us know when you get the answer.
To show what a red-blooded American he is, Jill. I agree, it's a complete waste of tax dollars and time.
So what's with the posting in Spanish? Greaat idea…….reach out for a greater audience.
Jill,
You should check out La Raza and I hope you will find why some people are interested in declaring English our official language.
In my original comment, I was being facetious, and I think that expectations for immigrants to this country have changed. If you read the La Raza website, and perhaps others of a similar inclination, you could be surprised.
Kyle made a good point that there are many legal immigrants who might need legal assistance at some point. Many government agencies have language assistance for those who need help. Also, how about the application of the American idea of free enterprise whereby bilingual speakers turn their talents and skills into a viable business?
Someone else made a good point. Traveling as a visitor is much different than adopting a new country. There is little expectation for a visitor to learn a new language, though hopefully he/she will respect the culture of the country.
But when you immigrate to a new country the expectations are different, or do you not agree with that?
larry
Piliticians think about this issue precisely because it hits so close to home for so many people and because of our country's immigration history. Further, it is also a pocketbook issue.
Anne - I do agree that visitor v. immigrant are two very different circumstances. I'm sorry that I'm not familiar with La Raza even nominally and will make time to check it out.
I think you make a lot of good points too - in addition to IDing Kyle's and others.
Thank you.
larry - thanks. That really is the point that the newspapers and others have made, I just feel there are a lot of other reasons to oppose the effort as well.
John - the translations are all here - 19 blogs participated and TIME magazine has a good post with comments here.
Jill
Congratulations on your recognition in Time.
Hopefully no one is assuming that you want to discourage people from learning English when they arrive in this country. In fact, immigrants should be encouraged all along the way and public schools and private agencies provide many services to enable that. I guess people such as myself question where to draw the line. Sure, part of this bill is merely political grandstanding, since most if not all of the state business is already conducted in English, but with so many different languages being spoken in Ohio and the seeming lack of interest by some immigrants in learning English and becoming more acculturated, if and where do government officials draw the line?
Leave a comment