Book Review of James Crawford,
"HOLD YOUR TONGUE: Bilingualism and the Politics of English Only"
(Addison-Wesley, 1993)

Reviewed by: Petrita Salazar Illinois State University (02/14/95)

The United States has faced an influx of immigration from other countries that carries with it many linguistic implications. In the past few decades, Spanish-speaking immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico and other Latin American countries, in addition to immigrants from Asian countries have migrated to the Unites States in increasing numbers. This has caused a considerable amount of concern among English-speaking, Anglo-Americans, so much, that in some states, legislatures have gone so far as to declare English the "Official Language".
James Crawford discusses the efforts of the "English Only" movement to establish English as the "official" language of the United States. He explores the politics of the debate, and discusses how politics has played a key role in the movement.
Crawford adresses several important issues throughout the book, some implied and some officially stated, that question whether or not bilingualism or multilingualism is a hindrance to America, or a significant economic resource through its promotion of ethnic diversity. Many opponents to the English Only movement, claim that "English Plus" is a feasible alternative in which Amercians should be recommended at best, to learn at least one language, other than their native tongue. However, it seems that the idea of forcing Americans to learn another language is imposing on them the same impositions that their counterparts (English Only) seek to impose on minority populations. Proponents for the English Only movement claim that newcomers should be expected to learn English, for their own good, as well as the country's good. The question seems to be " What's racist about that?" Crawford does not pronounce this as racist, but states that the issue is one of bilingual accomodations, not assimilation.
While reading the book, Crawford gives several questions to ponder. 1. Should government be able to provide minorities, resources and accomodations, as needed, to ease the immigrants' transition into society? 2. Should there be a right to certain services in minority tongues? 3. SHold public sector bilingualism be banned by law? 4. Is language the only bond that keeps Americans together? 5. Just what exactly is the purpose of declaring English the official language? (What is the point?) 6. Are immigrants better off to learn English as quickly as possible? 7. SHould government policy encourage quick assimilation into the English language? From these questions one can pull out a common theme or purpose, and that is the attempt to make the reader decide whether or not the United States needs to make English its official language. Crawford asserts, and does so well, that it does not. He postulates that most foreign-born immigrants eventually learn English, because speaking English connotes a sense of accomplishment and success that most minorities seek to obtain. Therefore, it is not necessary to force these minorities to learn to speak English by declaring it the "official language" because they will do so on their own, and coercion many times leads to resentment. Crawford asserts that by declaring English as the official language, the government is forcing a langugage on a group of people, which in turn may cause a great deal of hostilities from that group. He basically states that "English Only" is an unnecessary movement of legislation, only brought on by those who are paranoid that the Spanish-speaking minorities will soon become so strong and force their language on the English-speaking majority, and English will somehow get lost in the turmoil. Crawford is correct in asserting that this fear is totally unfounded, and there is no real threat to the loss of the English langugage, however, goes a little bit too far in assuming that all supporters of the English Only movement are supporting the movement because of bigotry or racism, or some kind of paranoia that the English language is fighting a losing battle against foreign tongues. Crawford discusses the argument made by a powerful organization (U.S. English) that lobbies for the English only legislation. He claims that the "English Only" movement gains support by instilling a false fear in Anglo- Americans that they will somehow lose their Americanism if athey allow those of foreign tongues to speak their language freely. The U.S. English thus asserts that allowing these various ethnic groups to speak their native tongues, puts the United States at risk for interethnic conflict, and that by promoting English and English only, our nation will pull together as one happy nation, under one flag and one language, and will prevent conflict that arises with official bilingualism. Crawford asserts that bilingualism is fundamental to today's society in the United States. He does so by tracing the English Only movement. He goes all the way back to the adoption of the United States Constituition and directs attention to the fact that athe word "english" appears nowhere in any draft of athe Constitution (P.27). He arrives at the conclusion that had our Founding Fathers intended for there to be an official lnaguage, they would have announced it at that time, because the dominion of English would have had the same threat, if not more, than that of today. He makes the comparison between German-Americans then, and Hispanic-Amercians now, in which each minority group represents the same population percentage, yet there are fewer non-English speaking Hispanics now, than were Germans then. So where does the threat come from? Is it possible that people are more prejudice against Hispanics now than they were against Germans then, or have people just become more paranoid, and less secure in who they are? Crawford asserts that there were more tongues spoken in the 1700's (500 - 1,000) in North America than there are today. Early settlers found it pertinent to survival to learn local dialects from those around them. Fluency in more than one language was commonplace. However, that is not to say that the Founders welcomes large scale immigration by non-English speakers (p. 39) for fear that too many immigrants from one area would bring with them principles of the government they sought to leave behind, and attempt to fuse them into the government ascribed by our Founders. Some areas were more accomodating than others, but there seemed to be a strong insistence that immigrants had a duty to learn English. World War I, according to Crawford, caused an enormous growth in subversive attitudes toward minorities, especially Germans. It was at this time that the government decided to promote a policy that provided opportunities for newcomers to learn Engllish, but those who failed to do so in five years would be deported. In the words of T. Roosevelt "If a man tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin, and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American:. Thus began the ever-controversial "English Only" campaign that has proliferated into today's society. Crawford furthers his exploration of the history of the "English Only" movement through his discussion of the influx of Hispanic immigrants in the past few decades. He probes into the imigration of Cuban refugess in the 1960's to the vote in favor of adopting English as the official language in Miami, shortly after the Castro's release of the marielitos. By the 1970's, Hispanics of all kinds dominated Miami's population, and the English-speaking Americans virtually found themselves out of place in their homeland. In other words, they were treated like foreigners in their own land. Tensions mounted until English speaking natives of Miami passed an "English Only" order, in 1980. The sentiment in Miami was "If you want to speak Spanish, go back where you came from". It was expressed by Enos Schern as cited in Crawford: How do you defend taking tax dollars and dispensing them for Spanish speakers, not caring about the right of 160 other ethnic groups? If all people are to be treated equal, then how can you defend equality by catering to Spanish speakers and ignoring the rest. If you are going to give something to one ethnic group, you have to give it to all ethnic groups, and so the debate of "English Only" continued. Crawford then discusses how proponents to English Only use the past few decades of turmoil in Canada, between the French and the English, as an example of how devastating an effect bilingualism can have on a country. However, Crawford warns that Canada's separatist movement cannot and should not be used as an example of what would happen if the United States accepts bilingualism. Crawford states " this is about as insightful as blaming religion for troubles in Northern Ireland, and calling for a crackdown on Catholicism in the United States (p. 234). Crawford seems to be grasping at straws to present the reader with a worthwhile anomaly. Despite his warning against making comparisons, Crawford does just that several pages later when discussing the success of multi-lingualism in Australia, apparently with the hopes of showing the differences of the effects of bi/multi-lingualism in different areas. All in all, Crawford's thoughtful exploration of the motives and assumptions is quite thought provoking. He discusses both sides of the argument to a certain degree, but tends to lean quite explicitly as an opponent to the "English Only" movement. Whatever the case may be, Crawford poses some serious questions that are in need of answers. -- Petrita Salazar plsalaz -- Petrita Salazar plsalaz

This page was last updated on 10/9/97 by Nigel Drayton (ndrayton@wam.umd.edu)
Questions, comments, and/or suggestions should be directed to diversity@umail.umd.edu

| Search inforM | UMD Homepage | inforM Homepage | inforM FAQ | Directory | Academics | Administration | Admissions | Campus Calendars | Computing | Highlights | Internet | Maps | MD & DC | News | Library Resources | Student | Testudo | UMD Today |

© University of Maryland.



		Book Review of James Crawford, "HOLD YOUR TONGUE: Bilingualism and the Politics of English Only" (Addison-Wesley, 1993) Reviewed by: Petrita Salazar Illinois State University (02/14/95) The United States has faced an influx of immigration from other countries that carries with it many linguistic implications. In the past few decades, Spanish-speaking immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico and other Latin American countries, in addition to immigrants from Asian countries have migrated to the Unites States in increasing numbers. This has caused a considerable amount of concern among English-speaking, Anglo-Americans, so much, that in some states, legislatures have gone so far as to declare English the "Official Language". James Crawford discusses the efforts of the "English Only" movement to establish English as the "official" language of the United States. He explores the politics of the debate, and discusses how politics has played a key role in the movement. Crawford adresses several important issues throughout the book, some implied and some officially stated, that question whether or not bilingualism or multilingualism is a hindrance to America, or a significant economic resource through its promotion of ethnic diversity. Many opponents to the English Only movement, claim that "English Plus" is a feasible alternative in which Amercians should be recommended at best, to learn at least one language, other than their native tongue. However, it seems that the idea of forcing Americans to learn another language is imposing on them the same impositions that their counterparts (English Only) seek to impose on minority populations. Proponents for the English Only movement claim that newcomers should be expected to learn English, for their own good, as well as the country's good. The question seems to be " What's racist about that?" Crawford does not pronounce this as racist, but states that the issue is one of bilingual accomodations, not assimilation. While reading the book, Crawford gives several questions to ponder. 1. Should government be able to provide minorities, resources and accomodations, as needed, to ease the immigrants' transition into society? 2. Should there be a right to certain services in minority tongues? 3. SHold public sector bilingualism be banned by law? 4. Is language the only bond that keeps Americans together? 5. Just what exactly is the purpose of declaring English the official language? (What is the point?) 6. Are immigrants better off to learn English as quickly as possible? 7. SHould government policy encourage quick assimilation into the English language? From these questions one can pull out a common theme or purpose, and that is the attempt to make the reader decide whether or not the United States needs to make English its official language. Crawford asserts, and does so well, that it does not. He postulates that most foreign-born immigrants eventually learn English, because speaking English connotes a sense of accomplishment and success that most minorities seek to obtain. Therefore, it is not necessary to force these minorities to learn to speak English by declaring it the "official language" because they will do so on their own, and coercion many times leads to resentment. Crawford asserts that by declaring English as the official language, the government is forcing a langugage on a group of people, which in turn may cause a great deal of hostilities from that group. He basically states that "English Only" is an unnecessary movement of legislation, only brought on by those who are paranoid that the Spanish-speaking minorities will soon become so strong and force their language on the English-speaking majority, and English will somehow get lost in the turmoil. Crawford is correct in asserting that this fear is totally unfounded, and there is no real threat to the loss of the English langugage, however, goes a little bit too far in assuming that all supporters of the English Only movement are supporting the movement because of bigotry or racism, or some kind of paranoia that the English language is fighting a losing battle against foreign tongues. Crawford discusses the argument made by a powerful organization (U.S. English) that lobbies for the English only legislation. He claims that the "English Only" movement gains support by instilling a false fear in Anglo- Americans that they will somehow lose their Americanism if athey allow those of foreign tongues to speak their language freely. The U.S. English thus asserts that allowing these various ethnic groups to speak their native tongues, puts the United States at risk for interethnic conflict, and that by promoting English and English only, our nation will pull together as one happy nation, under one flag and one language, and will prevent conflict that arises with official bilingualism. Crawford asserts that bilingualism is fundamental to today's society in the United States. He does so by tracing the English Only movement. He goes all the way back to the adoption of the United States Constituition and directs attention to the fact that athe word "english" appears nowhere in any draft of athe Constitution (P.27). He arrives at the conclusion that had our Founding Fathers intended for there to be an official lnaguage, they would have announced it at that time, because the dominion of English would have had the same threat, if not more, than that of today. He makes the comparison between German-Americans then, and Hispanic-Amercians now, in which each minority group represents the same population percentage, yet there are fewer non-English speaking Hispanics now, than were Germans then. So where does the threat come from? Is it possible that people are more prejudice against Hispanics now than they were against Germans then, or have people just become more paranoid, and less secure in who they are? Crawford asserts that there were more tongues spoken in the 1700's (500 - 1,000) in North America than there are today. Early settlers found it pertinent to survival to learn local dialects from those around them. Fluency in more than one language was commonplace. However, that is not to say that the Founders welcomes large scale immigration by non-English speakers (p. 39) for fear that too many immigrants from one area would bring with them principles of the government they sought to leave behind, and attempt to fuse them into the government ascribed by our Founders. Some areas were more accomodating than others, but there seemed to be a strong insistence that immigrants had a duty to learn English. World War I, according to Crawford, caused an enormous growth in subversive attitudes toward minorities, especially Germans. It was at this time that the government decided to promote a policy that provided opportunities for newcomers to learn Engllish, but those who failed to do so in five years would be deported. In the words of T. Roosevelt "If a man tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin, and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American:. Thus began the ever-controversial "English Only" campaign that has proliferated into today's society. Crawford furthers his exploration of the history of the "English Only" movement through his discussion of the influx of Hispanic immigrants in the past few decades. He probes into the imigration of Cuban refugess in the 1960's to the vote in favor of adopting English as the official language in Miami, shortly after the Castro's release of the marielitos. By the 1970's, Hispanics of all kinds dominated Miami's population, and the English-speaking Americans virtually found themselves out of place in their homeland. In other words, they were treated like foreigners in their own land. Tensions mounted until English speaking natives of Miami passed an "English Only" order, in 1980. The sentiment in Miami was "If you want to speak Spanish, go back where you came from". It was expressed by Enos Schern as cited in Crawford: How do you defend taking tax dollars and dispensing them for Spanish speakers, not caring about the right of 160 other ethnic groups? If all people are to be treated equal, then how can you defend equality by catering to Spanish speakers and ignoring the rest. If you are going to give something to one ethnic group, you have to give it to all ethnic groups, and so the debate of "English Only" continued. Crawford then discusses how proponents to English Only use the past few decades of turmoil in Canada, between the French and the English, as an example of how devastating an effect bilingualism can have on a country. However, Crawford warns that Canada's separatist movement cannot and should not be used as an example of what would happen if the United States accepts bilingualism. Crawford states " this is about as insightful as blaming religion for troubles in Northern Ireland, and calling for a crackdown on Catholicism in the United States (p. 234). Crawford seems to be grasping at straws to present the reader with a worthwhile anomaly. Despite his warning against making comparisons, Crawford does just that several pages later when discussing the success of multi-lingualism in Australia, apparently with the hopes of showing the differences of the effects of bi/multi-lingualism in different areas. All in all, Crawford's thoughtful exploration of the motives and assumptions is quite thought provoking. He discusses both sides of the argument to a certain degree, but tends to lean quite explicitly as an opponent to the "English Only" movement. Whatever the case may be, Crawford poses some serious questions that are in need of answers. -- Petrita Salazar plsalaz -- Petrita Salazar plsalaz This page was last updated on 10/9/97 by Nigel Drayton (ndrayton@wam.umd.edu) Questions, comments, and/or suggestions should be directed to diversity@umail.umd.edu \| Search inforM \| UMD Homepage \| inforM Homepage \| inforM FAQ \| Directory \| Academics \| Administration \| Admissions \| Campus Calendars \| Computing \| Highlights \| Internet \| Maps \| MD & DC \| News \| Library Resources \| Student \| Testudo \| UMD Today \|

© University of Maryland.