Read “The English-Only Movement: Can America Proscribe Language with a Clear Conscience?” (pg.249) in Models for Writers and respond on the class blog.
Write a summary/reflection that is 200-250 words. Review the guidelines for your daily responses linked at the top of the 'Homebase' doc.
¨The English-Only Movement: Can America Proscribe Language with a Clear Conscience?” Is an essay written by Jake Jameson that details the current argument over whether or not the United States should declare English as its official language. He begins his essay by introducing the current argument through an anecdote about the “melting pot” that the U.S is. Next, he introduces the main points for supporters of the English-Only ideology. Jameison states that their belief is that this declaration would be an act of inclusion since it would promote parentsto teachtheir children English, which subsequently corresponds to being more successful. He then goes on to explain the counterargument, which interprets the opposing argument as a facade for discrimination. Finally, he finishes off the article by making his own opinion
ReplyDeleteclear: that English-only laws do not properly serve the ideals that the United States sholud stand for.
Within this article, Jamieson uses a good mixture of pathos, logos and ethos. In order to support his argument, he made sure to use a lot of credible souces to create a very fact-filled case. He also made sure to provide proper evidence on both sides to further establish his credibility as one who has considered both points of view. He also uses an anectode about a Texas ruling to further advance his own case. In the end, he also utilizes ethos in his favor as he asks the reader questions about the willingness of Americans to accept others.
I personally find Jamieson´s writing to be well structured and compelling. By beginning with explaining the opposing side and quickly countering their argument, he set a great stage for the rest of the case he made. He was also effective with using credible evidence to support nearly every point he made. In the end, I definitely agree with his point of view. As the article stated “Why make a language official when it is already firmly entrenched and widely used in this country?” The biggest underlying support for this seems to simply be discrimintation, and with a country built off the backbone of immigration, this should never be the case.
The essay, "The English-Only Movement: Can America Proscribe Language with a Clear Conscience?" is an essay that discusses about whether English should be officially used as America's language. He starts his essay by introducing how America is similar to a melting pot because of the hundreds of different cultures that the US has. He then talks about the points of the people who believe that the US should only consist of English and nothing else. He even mentions about how there is no such agreement of what constitutes the "American Way." He then switches to the counterargument where there is discrimination towards different cultures. One example he showed was when a mother was ruled for abuse because she only spoke Spanish to her daughter. He finally puts out his own opinion how it's unworthy to put out English-only laws in the United States, and that it doesn't represent what they stand for.
ReplyDeleteI truly enjoyed this essay because of well structured it was. There were plenty of rhetorical strategies used such as ethos, logos, and pathos. For example, he used ethos when he was talking about what different people had to say about the controversy. It showed the credibility he used in his essay, and how people can trust his writing. He also used things like anecdotes which mainly represented pathos to play with the readers' emotions. I also truly liked how he included his own opinion because it's always left out in informative essays which makes me confused on what the author would have thought about the issue.
connor lee
DeleteThe English-Only Movement: Can America Proscribe Language with a Clear Conscience?” by James Jamieson is an essay about whether or not the United States should have a official language and make that English. He explains how America is seen as a "melting pot" but how immigrants have to learn English and are sometimes seen as being "tossed into the melting pot", having to learn holidays and clothing expectations and our "way" of doing things. He then states his opinion: making English our official language seems to take steps back in everything that America is fighting for.
ReplyDeleteJamieson makes a good point and uses a good mix of the various rhetorical structures, ethos, pathos, and logos, citing various bills, studies, and quoting people who would be affected.
Personally, I agree with his thesis that America should remain not having an official language. America is a country that was built by immigrants and making English our official language would make it even harder for immigrants to live in the U.S. than it already is.
Jamieson's writing is sophisticated yet compelling and powerful.
The article “The English-Only Movement: Can America Proscribe language with a Clear Conscience” by Jake Jamieson is about some people’s view point as seeing America as “a giant calderon into which immigrants are tossed”(250). While some people view the United States as a friendly place where all different types of cultures come together with peace, other people believe that all the various values and backgrounds aren’t equal. Jamieson talks about how one of the commonalities that most people share in the US is the ability to speak English. He states points on why America shouldn’t make English the official language of this land. But first, he gave his counterargument. He showed that some political leaders believe that requiring people to know how to speak English is like a note to people that they are officially part of the country. On the other hand, Jamieson then talks about his own argument. He argues about how some people don’t think of this as a nice and welcoming act, but like some sort of test. For instance, the author states: “The NABE condemned this statement for “labeling the Spanish language as abuse.””(252) Numerous people don’t believe that everyone is required to learn English because they feel like it is unfair to their own culture and values.
ReplyDeleteJamieson gave a strong argument to prove his point. His evidence was strong and he used lots of rhetorical devices. I agree with his opinion of not having everyone in the US being required to know English. That would not be fair to those who have to be kicked out in order to live in America. I feel like everyone should get to believe in their own values and religions, not having to only follow the American culture.
Jake Jamieson offers two different points of views on assimilation in the United States in the short essay,"The English-Only Movement: Can America Proscribe Language With a Clear Conscience?" In the beginning, he suggests a point of view that believes that it should be expected of immigrants to do things the "American Way", and speaking the language is not unreasonable. Another point of view contradicts with the point that there is no "American Way" of doing things, and if English were to be the official language of the United States, it would "change the ground rules and expectations surrounding immigrant assimilation." He offers two sides of the situation, but he later states that he supports making English the official language because it is necessary due to the fact that diversity is growing.
ReplyDeleteJamieson says that as long as there are positive intentions towards using only English, then there should be no issue in making English the official language in America. According to Jamieson, it is important to make English the official language of the United States because it would make communication in the government easier and would help the children who speak a different language at home succeed at school. He uses ethos to quote David Price, a conservative attorney to prove that the majority of English speakers find it less convenient for them to speak their native language.
However, this may go against the First Amendment, and discriminate against immigrants, encouraging a "fear of being subsumed by a growing foreigness' in our midst". Plus, most of the "make English the official language" laws passed were somewhat correlated to anti-immigration.
He concludes using the quote by Professor Robert D. King that states, "language does not threaten American unity."
I believe that making English the official language will not affect the First Amendment because people are still allowed to speak in their native tongue. Rather, it will give America more structure.
The story "The English -Only Movement: Can America Proscribe Language with a Clear Conscience?" by Jake Jamieson is a story about how America should or should not make English the official language. Jamieson presents 2 different ways people see America. One as a giant melting pot where many different cultures are put together, the other, as a giant melting pot melting away the immigrants culture. One of the sides to making English is that speaking in a different language can be abusive, why do immigrants refuse to change, and why can't they see that speaking English is the right thing to do? The other side is that the US already has it possible to vote, file a tax return, get married, obtain a driver's license and become a U.S. citizen with a language besides English. There are many states who have already decided to make English their official language, and this issue is still questioned everyday.
ReplyDeleteThe story is supported with many quotes and evidence. The article is about how English should or shouldn't be our official language
I believe that we can make English our official language, but it should not restrict what others languages that can be spoken and can be used in everyday life.
Many people, both civilians and people in the government wish to make English the United States the "official language". This would require every immigrant to know at least a minimal amount of English, needing to know and define words such as county commissioner and vice president. Many people argue that requiring people to know English would be beneficial to everybody. They argue that everybody speaking English would ensure communication for everybody. Others believe that requiring people to for lack of a better term, discard their first language is discrimination.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are many differing opinions, the author remains fairly objective, while still hinting at what stance he takes. However, I could not find his thesis. I did like the way that he made the essay very informational. He included many different sources, exposing many differing opinions, letting the reader decide for themselves what they want to believe.
The essay “The English-Only Movement: Can America Proscribe Language with a Clear Conscience”, written by Jake Jamieson, discusses the topic of using English as the official language of the United States of America. Many Americans view the meaning of the “melting pot” in different ways. Some believe that it is a place where immigrants can assimilate to American culture, but for others it is where all different cultures are heard and shared. The author then questions if immigrants should be able to continue using their own languages or if they should be required to know English. For people who think that immigrants should assimilate to American ways it is very unclear to what the mean by “American ways”. Today, one thing many Americans have in common is the ability to speak English. Making the official language English would have a multitude of effects on immigrants. Many supporters of making English official say that it is what the country needs because of our growing diversity and that it is a necessity for the democracy. In contrast, people who believe that making English the official language is bad say that it is far from a “welcoming act of inclusion”. To highlight the controversy of making English official, Jamieson gives a real-life example. He later goes on to share the perspective of different people such as David Price and Robert King. At the end Jamieson finishes by questioning both sides of the argument and by including a quote by Myriam Marquez. I believe that the author was effectively able to convey both sides of the argument through reasoning and questioning. This article really made me think about how my parents assimilated to American culture. My parents had less of a difficult time because they grew up learning in English, but for people who didn’t have this prior education, learning a new language and assimilating can be very difficult.
ReplyDeleteShishira
The U.S. has long debated whether or not it should change it's official language to English. Currently, there is no official language of the United States, however, if there were to be an official language, all official government matters will have to be done in English. The Essay “The English-Only Movement: Can America Prescribe Language with a Clear Conscience” is written by Jake Jamieson. The essay tackles the issue of legislating English as the official language of the United States. Jamieson believes that the current system of not having a common language in America is working very well, and there is no need to legislate an official one. He criticized that the English-only legislation is anti-immigrant and does not foster better communication. Although he stated the different opinions of experts on the advantages and disadvantages of having an official language in America, he considers that making English as a common language is discrimination. He further believes that speaking in the native language would preserve immigrant’s ethnicities.
ReplyDeleteMany different people from many different countries of many different ethnic groups speaking in many different tongues migrated to America. I believe that there should be one common language that all immigrants can speak and understand. Since English is the dominant language in the United States, the government should mandate English as the official language in America. An absence of a common language would result in a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. Communication gaps also create tension. The immigrant would need to learn English as their second language to better assimilate. Speaking in English does not mean they are being robbed of their own language. They also have the right to speak whatever language they want anytime and anywhere.
"The English-Only Movement: Can America Proscribe Language with a Clear Conscience?" by Jake Jamieson scrutinizes the debate of an official language in America. The idea of making English the official language of America and requiring all immigrants to use and learn English has been rising in popularity due to the common idea that people who come to America must want to assimilate into American culture. Jamieson counters this idea with evident use of an immigrant's native language and the discrimination they face for using their own language. The discussion of language in America progressively becomes more and more complex, truly questioning what the American democracy means: does the first amendment only apply to English speaking peoples?
ReplyDeleteJamieson begins his essay from a relatively objective point of view, pointing out the valid support behind both sides. However, deeper into the essay his word choice becomes sharper and appeals to the pathos and logos of the reader to encourage the side of those against an "English-only" America. His argument is strengthened by his beginning's shared focus of the two sides, therefore heightening his own ethos. He supplies his argument with many quotes and examples of language discrimination. Personally I had found the example of a judge in Texas ruling that a mother's use of only Spanish towards her five-year-old daughter as abuse to be particularly effective as it makes the other side of the argument seem completely prejudiced though the reader knows it is not. Jamieson manipulates his words to effectively show his perspective on the issue.
Personally as a daughter of immigrants I believe that English should not be a required part of coming to America. This essay only furthers my knowledge and cements my stance on the debate. While I recognise the need of clarity within the government and its people so to have a more honest and open country, I truly think that to force English upon everyone who wants to come to America violates the basis of American democracy, therefore inflicting a sort of tyranny. The preservation of multiple cultures and their languages is a vital part to the diversity of America and should be kept alive.
Claire Liu
In Jamieson's "The English Only Movement: Can America Proscribe Language with a Clear Conscience," the author writes about the two sides of making English the official language of the United States. The author starts off with the assertion that forcing immigrants to assimilate to American culture isn't too unreasonable, by saying “They believe that assimilation offers the only way for everyone in this country to live together in harmony.” But later points one major flaw,”there is no agreement on what exactly constitutes the ‘American way’ of doing things.” With this, he progresses his thoughts into saying that there are diverse values and cultures that can’t be unified except the most common spoken language in America, English.
ReplyDeleteFor the defense of making English the official language of America, he turns to Charles Krauthammer by saying that it, “But he (the immigrant) must understand that when he comes to the United States, swears, allegiance, and accepts its bount, he undertakes to join its civil culture. In English.” Krauthammer is then followed with the defense that officiating English would ensure that all political business done in English would uphold democracy. According to Bob Dole, English is a necessity to the American dream.
Others opposing the idea see it as a bad thing, such as Myriam Marquez’s thought of it gauging patriotism or it promotes discouragement due to it being easier than by race or ethnicity, according to James Crawford. And connected to discrimination, many advocates for official-English laws are in favor in restricting immigration benefits and limiting immigration.
In my opinion, there is no need for a law to maintain English, as its limiting of a culture and identify as well as being an excuse to push an anti-immigration, conservative agenda.
-Jonah Bahr
(Ryan Clark, part 1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteIn “The English-Only Movement: Can America America Proscribe Language with a Clear Conscience,” James Jamieson details the “English Only” movement. It seeks to legislate and enforce English as America’s official language and to render fluency in English a requirement for citizenship. Jamieson never makes his personal thesis the crux of his essay as it is mainly informative rather than persuasive, but his careful presentation of facts that undermine the claims of the English-Only and other rhetorical schemes demonstrate he opposes legislating English as an official language.
Jamieson begins by describing the popular analogical “melting pot” view of America as a country where immigrants’ distinct cultural identities “melt away” into a homogeneous national identity. Believers in this concept often assert that immigrants who willfully come to America should also strive to emulate the “American way” of living. Jamieson contradicts this attitude by stating that “there is no agreement on what exactly constitutes the ‘American way’ of doing things” and that “There are so many sets of variables that it would be hard to defend the argument that there is only one culture in the United States” (250).
The author then begins a description of some of the commons reasons cited to support the officialization of English. One justification is that citizens ought to be able to understand governmental communication. Another is that speaking English “is the ticket to the American Dream” (251). Critics of this view say that linguistic regulation is merely xenophobic discrimination under the veil of egalitarian concern for the plight of immigrants. Perhaps in support of this opinion, the author notes that proposed official-English bills are often concomitant with anti-immigrant legislation. He also believes that zeal for a linguistic hegemony is reaching neurotic heights: a Texan judge’s conviction of a mother for child abuse because she spoke to her daughter solely in Spanish is an example of this. Jamieson finally asserts that illegalizing non-English languages is an inconsistent with America’s professed love of free speech.
For the author, the official-English movement is a doctrine that runs in conflict with American values of tolerance and freedom of expression and thus must be halted. This thesis is correct. However, the essay contains two defects.
The first is of form. Over the course of a mere four pages, Jameson uses nine rhetorical questions. This is illustrative of the author’s fear to seem subjective or opinionated. However, his fear is so great that it produces an ugly cowardice. Jamieson’s phobia manifests itself in obnoxious triplets of question marks and quotations haphazardly strewn around like a child’s dirty laundry. The author must instead be a conqueror. Tyrannize! Crush the masses with your rhetoric like the sophists of yore! Discipline the philistines with your vade mecum of multiculturalist platitudes and precarious syllogisms!
(Ryan Clark, part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteThe next defect is of content. Jamieson does not perceive deeply enough into the terrifying implications of linguistic control. The numbers of the only really ardorous believers in the English-Only Movement, i.e. hardcore-xenophobes, are only as great as the numbers of the transnational terrorists they fear; while the effects of immigrant-hating ideologues are perceptible in the present society, they are not a feature of everyday life. Jamieson’s talk of “conservative commentators” obfuscates the actual source of the language regulation threat. The real instigators of verbal despotism will not be far-right eschatologists who tweet Bible verses in their free time but inconspicuous bureaucrats. While the regulation of language may at first be framed in a patriotic sense (and it will continue to be to the public via government propaganda), it will be a tool to the state seeking to satisfy its totalitarian desires. The nature of such an event is that its erosion of freedom is exponential and thus probably irreversible. The worse-equipped people are to communicate their lack of individual power, the less they can act to do something about it. As George Orwell notes in his famous “Politics and the English Language” essay, “Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Indeed, for when a linguistic hegemony is created, it necessarily creates an asymmetry in liberty of thought. Slavoj Zizek echoes this sentiment when he writes in Welcome to the Desert of the Real after describing Siberian workers’ experiences with their censors that “We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.” Jamieson is correct when he detects that making one language wrong and another right is deeply wrong. However, it is not simply the identities of immigrants that are at stake. Language may be arbitrary, bewildering, and perhaps even broken, but it is somewhere amidst the chaos of sounds and words that true freedom persists.
The story "The English-Only Movement: Can America Proscribe Language with a Clear Conscience" by Jake Jamieson is a persuasive essay talking about immigrants being required to learn English to live in America. He has a very active voice throughout the passage questioning the reader on the subject. He finds it bewildering and irrational that immigrants are practically being forced to learn English in order to become a US citizen. He also refers to this law as abuse, even though English is the official language of the USA. He made an impactful point when he used a phrase right out of our Declaration of independence, starting that everyone is deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness no matter what language they speak or where they are from. I agree with his arguements, and found this piece to be quite interesting, as I began to notice myself to enjoying what was being presented to me through Jamieson's words. I can relate to this because the majority of my family is Latino, and a lot of them born in Mexico came to the USA and were forced to learn English. Pathos was used by making the reader feel sympathetic for the immigrants forced to learn English to live here. Ethos was also used by listing facts about the government doing little to change these laws, and how this affected people, such as the mother only speaking to her 5 year old daughter in Spanish.
ReplyDelete