[Grovenet] ear mark this!

[Walt Wentz]

Well put, David!
"Immersion" from an early age is certainly the most efficient way to 
learn a foreign language. Years ago, while jammed into a gridlocked 
crowd watching the Chinese New Year parade in Chinatown, San 
Francisco, I met a missionary couple and their four-year-old 
daughter-- who spoke fluent Mandarin, due to being born and raised in 
China. A shopkeeper was so taken with the little girl's talk that he 
invited all of us to stand on his shop stoop, where we could see over 
the heads of the mob. Certainly, speaking the local language is a 
compliment that is much appreciated by locals.
But-- failing early immersion, when the brain is still being wired 
and language is picked up almost automatically-- ESL is probably the 
most practical means of teaching foreign speakers who are already 
past the age of 8 or 9. And, naturally, those who do not or cannot 
take advantage of ESL are relegated to a permanent "underclass."
And, as you say, our national ideals -- at least those ideals we 
supposedly, "officially" hold-- do not provide for a permanent class 
of serfs. But that is what we have, as long as industries like 
meat-packing, agriculture and building-- and our own government-- 
connive to attract an endless supply of low-paid, easily-abused, 
disposable and undocumented foreign workers. Our own American 
"nativists" (to use the polite term) insist that the children of 
those workers should not be allowed to learn English in our schools, 
and that their parents must never attempt to do official business in 
their native language.
Bingo. Instant, permanent underclass. A corporate CEO's dream.
Naturally, our nativists are distraught to see foreign-speaking, 
dark-skinned people "invading" their space, driving down wages and 
competing for social services.
The complicit legislator's answer? A cheap, meaningless and totally 
ineffectual gesture like the "official language" measure, that 
panders to the nativists' xenophobia, but accomplishes nothing else. 
Nothing about actually enforcing immigration laws that have been on 
the books more than half a century.  Nothing about trying to 
ameliorate the destructive effects of NAFTA on families in Latin 
America. Nothing about effectively regulating our porous borders. 
Nothing, in short, that would inconvenience or annoy the cheap-labor 
industries, or require actual, concentrated thought by our 
legislators.
The gullible nativists are placated-- although their low-paying jobs 
continue to vanish and their real incomes continue to decline as 
grinding poverty and corruption at home continue to drive more 
economic refugees across our border.
But if English is our "official language," then all is well!
Right.
WW

>  > 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:
>_______________________________________________
>GroveNet mailing list
>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet