[Grovenet] ear mark this!

[David Morelli]

> Good point Steven. It does not stop a requirement for a second  
> language.  But in practice, the forces that want to promote english  
> as the  'official' language usually don't promote having anybody  
> learn a  second language either.  If they would support more  
> language  education to make us wiser and more worldly, then they  
> would probably  get more people to support an official language.
>
> Katie

I'll rise to that bait, and I will admit to my blind spot in  
advance.  I happen to feel that all of the children in our society  
deserve an opportunity to advance within our economy on an equal  
footing.  Some parents don't share my bias, they want their children  
to follow in their traditions even if it handicaps their social  
mobility, or perhaps *because* it handicaps their social mobility.  I  
am not arguing against that position, I am only presenting my opinions.

I believe that the United States has a better chance of remaining  
united if we are able to listen to each other's position on the  
topics that potentially divide us.  At the very least, when we are  
listening to each other, we are not hitting each other.

I believe that individual citizens will fare better in any  
competition for job advancement if they can speak the language of  
their bosses.  Otherwise they are held down by a very practical  
celling on their opportunities.  To that end, if you take a job in a  
foreign country, you should be prepared to learn that nation's language.

I believe that human beings share a common trait to "efficiency"  
where they don't waste effort on tasks that don't interest them or  
where they don't see a practical use.  In the case of children, that  
may well include learning any language beyond their first one.  After  
all, I do recall the first, loudest, and most persistent question  
raised in High School Latin class was, "why learn Latin?", and in the  
absence of a good answer, we didn't.  Why will children learn English  
if they are not expected to learn it?  That is where adults need to  
act as adults and take a long term view for the benefit of their  
charges.

For children to learn a language well they should start young, and  
so, to build proficient English skills in our young citizens, they  
are best served by immersion in English as soon as they enter our  
school system.  In a similar vein, those who are already proficient  
in English would benefit ( and the US as a whole as well ) by  
immersion in second or third languages at the same age.  I am aware  
that there are those who promote dual immersion as a means to  
accomplish both at the same time.  I would suggest that the ESL  
students in these programs reach High School without the English  
proficiency they deserve to compete in our economy.  I am not  
interested in sacrificing their future opportunities to provide  
expanded opportunities for those who have parents who already are  
interested in their future.  They can learn from teachers.  At many  
times in history people have routinely learned and spoken multiple  
languages, one at home, one at the market, and one while dealing with  
their over lords.  There is no good reason each child can not learn a  
common national language, a traditional ancestral language, and one  
or more foreign languages.  If someone wishes to standardize on a  
second language in the schools to teach the skill of learning a  
different way of addressing language, I would suggest American Sign  
Language.  Of all those who are non-English speakers ASL talkers may  
face the greatest divide.

In my view of an ideal society, I don't see the need for a population  
of "second class" citizens.  I don't need cheap labor to be imported  
to this country to do stoop labor.  If the job isn't valued and the  
worker isn't valued, perhaps it should not be done at all.  If it  
needs to be done then the workers who do the job need to be valued as  
well.  Intentionally keeping a pool of poorly educated, inarticulate  
people in this country for the sole purpose of providing unskilled  
labor for undesirable jobs is an ugly approach to human relations and  
I don't approve of it.

And because of my bias in that direction, I don't approve of those  
approaches that yield the same results, even when the motive is  
different.

David


On Feb 11, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Katie Allnutt wrote: