Skip to comments.Take America Back With English Language Bill
Posted on 07/08/2012 3:20:04 PM PDT by Kfobbs
Take America back with English Language Bill: By Kevin Fobbs - July 8, 2012
For far too long Americans have allowed themselves to be lulled into a neat little corner of dulled complacency because political correctness and intellectual piracy has subjugated citizens to become mentally enslaved by the politically correct thought police at the expense of Americans English language heritage. If this constitutional wrecking ball continues at this unrestrained pace, Obama may well decide that his socialist-minded hubris demands that by presidential executive order, English, become relegated to second, third or last place status, Because it is the right thing to do!
This must no longer be tolerated here in this nation or in any state in the nation. We can no longer afford to be asleep at the switch while, our children, our nieces and nephews and grandchildren our penalized because precious educational dollars are siphoned off to accommodate illegal alien children who continue to learn to speak in the native tongue of their foreign country....
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
I’m not letting them control my words. I’m using the ones I prefer, the more accurate ones. Those who say ‘English Only’ are using the ones people on the left want them to use.
“We live in this fog of political correctness, where everything is perpetual deception.”
- John Hagee
Also get the PC Newspeak out of the English language. “If you control the language, you control the culture. For instant, there is no”banking community”. Rather, there is a “banking industry”. “Customers”, not “consumers”(the word makes me think of PAC Man)..
> “We live in this fog of political correctness, where everything is perpetual deception.” - John Hagee
I’m opposing political correctness by refusing to use the deceptive term that its supporters use (’English Only’). ‘English Only’ flatly contradicts the provisions of all the major proposals, and the traditional practice in the United States. Proposals that English be the official language of the government and of the public schools, and the common language of the American people do not imply that Americans can’t know other languages in addition to English. That’s why I prefer ‘Official English’, ‘U.S. English’, ‘ProEnglish’, or ‘English First’.
If you have the time to discuss this in greater detail, I'd like to learn more about the situation in Arizona. I'm a non-Hispanic on the opposite side of the country in South Carolina, but I've also lived in Miami, Denver, studied Spanish in Mexico and Spain, and taught Spanish for a few years, decades ago.
I found a copy of Arizona's Proposition 203, English Language Education for Children in Public Schools, which was approved in 2000. (Here's another copy without so many paragraphs in all caps, ironically a bilingual version from Canada.) It specifically states "Foreign language classes for children who already know English shall be completely unaffected..." That means it's not English Only even for the public schools.
I oppose bilingual programs for immigrants that stretch out for many years. Setting up such tracks for Spanish speakers may impede their learning of English, and in effect serve to institutionalize Spanish as an alternative in this country to English. I favor a relatively quick transition, but not an immersion in English in which all reference to Spanish is forbidden. I notice that the Arizona law provides for a one-year “sheltered immersion” in English (”Although teachers may use a minimal amount of the child’s native language when necessary...”). That sounds fine. Whatever the conditions, though, quickly teaching persons who speak one language to speak and read another won’t be easy.
I have some experience with this from the other side, teaching Spanish to English speakers. I did my practice teaching in a high school that used immersion in Spanish in its beginning Spanish classes. Even with carefully prepared materials, relying on pictures and pantomime doesn’t work very well for some ideas. Occasional words in the other language can be helpful.
For instance, how do you get across the idea of ‘idea’ itself? That’s not easy. Yet in English and Spanish the words have the same origin and are spelled exactly the same way (just pronounced differently). It can be taught in seconds to a person who already understands it in one language by a quick reference to that.
I like the basic thrust of the Arizona proposal, and the attempt to make a relatively quick transition, just so the reliance on English isn’t enforced in too doctrinaire a fashion.
Did you notice the point of my post, the numbers?
Your posts have provided a good example of:
“Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.”
I’m beginning to suspect that I’m wasting my time. I support the Arizona proposal — which does not equate to English only. I dislike deceptive quoting. Your own earlier stats said “Arizona Proposition 103: English as Official Language Yes...No...Full AZ 74%...26%” — English as Official Language! When you quoted them again, you left out “English as Official Language” — exactly what I support, and that doesn’t mean English Only. (People who understand the meaning of the English word ‘official’ know that.)
Readers who are following this discussion can see that when you use 'English Only', it's you who are using the term insisted upon by the left. I oppose it.
To accuse me of cultural Marxism, when you are the one using the term cultural Marxists prefer, is absurd. (I don't accuse you of cultural Marxism, though, just of stubbornness and refusing to admit a mistake.) I suspect that if you had more knowledge of the topic, you wouldn't have to resort to that kind of thing.
As far as I can tell, we both favor Official English and English as the common language of the people of the United States. Apparently you took offense, though, at my suggestion that 'English Only' isn't the best term for the movement (and, in fact, is the term used by the opposition -- if you have evidence to the contrary, post it), and are determined to insist upon it (by making personal attacks rather than by giving reasons). How about omitting the ad hominem arguments, and either give reasons or agree to disagree? I come to this site to have discussions, not to exchange insults.
You went off on some politically correct personal opinion that has nothing to do with anything and no one cares about.
If you still believe your PC crap after looking at the voter numbers, then something besides truth motivates you.
And, no one has time to read your many long posts. You are wasting everyone's time with your obsession with PC double talk that only tries to hide truth and confuses understanding.
> And, no one has time to read your many long posts.
My posts are for persons who have more than a superficial interest in the topic. I can read a moderately long post in less than a minute and believe many others can too. Don't assume that the people here are semi-illiterates who have to struggle to sound out each word.
Here, you’re gonna need this for future PC harassment:
A Criminal - unsavory character
A Crook - morally (ethically) challenged
Abortion - Near-Life Experience
Alcoholic - Anti-Sobriety Activist
Censorship - Selective Speech
Cheating - Academic Dishonesty
China - Porcelain
Chronically Late - Temporarily Challenged
Clumsy - uniquely coordinated
Dishonest - Ethically disoriented
Fat - People of Mass
Fat - person of substance
Fictional / Mythological - ontologically challenged
Freshman - first-year student
Frog - amphibian American
Are persons who reject the misleading name given to Obamacare — ‘the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ — being pc too? How about persons who won’t call supporters of abortion rights ‘pro choice’?
Full of Crap - fecally plenary
Spare us the vulgarity. If you’re unwilling to answer those two simple questions, just say so. Are persons who reject the misleading name given to Obamacare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act being pc too? How about persons who wont call supporters of abortion rights pro choice?
Ignorant - factually unencumbered
Ignorant - knowledge-based nonpossessor.
Incompetent - Differently Qualified
Incompetent - Specially Skilled
Incompetent - Uniquely Proficient
Insane People - Mental Explorers
Some persons, when challenged about something they can’t defend, refuse to participate in a genuine discussion (and lack the politeness to agree to disagree). They imagine they can somehow give the impression — among the unintelligent anyway — that they have won the argument if only they can make the last post in the exchange, however irrelevant and unresponsive it may be.
We can see your dedication to political correctness on this thread. In your glee to attack, you missed some basic information. I’ll stop teasing you and explain it to you.
In Post #7, my original post, “English Only” was in quotes - that means something.
My first sentence made it clear my point was that no one in Arizona is mad at Republicans because of the proposition (even though it was called “English Only” in all the ads and media), and I posted the stats to prove it.
You didn’t seem to notice that I included the proper name of Arizona Proposition 103 which is English as Official Language.
So, you missed all the conservative subtleties of my post, because of your political correctness; which, like a good fellow traveler, you rushed to inflict upon us.
This is you, intentional or not:
“Political Correctness is a principal tool of the political left. Its purpose is to intimidate and to end the debate.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.