A History of Conquest and Subjugation
The Long View Backwards
For people raised and programmed on the patriarchal religions of today, religions that affect us in even the most secular aspects of our society, perhaps there remains a lingering, almost innate memory of sacred shrines and temples tended by priestesses who served in the religion of the original supreme deity. (Stone, 1976, p. 1)
The same can be said equally in terms of racism and cultural and linguistic prejudice. We may have been reared – since we were in-utero – on a white, male-dominated, English-speaking, middle-class, pro-Christian, work-ethic paradigm; still we retain a “lingering, almost innate memory” of other traditions reaching backwards across millennia into northern Europe, Indo-Europe, Asia, Africa, and the indigenous beginnings of the American continents. How else could one explain the story (Funk, 1940) of Reider T. Sherwin, a Norwegian immigrant to the United States, who recognized his own Norwegian tongue –pronunciations and meanings – in the place names and everyday words of the Algonquins?
Apparently, the conquest and subjugation of the American natives is not limited to the last five centuries; it reaches deep into European roots of conquest and domination which already were well established when the Vikings came here nearly one thousand years ago. Indeed, the Vikings came from a background of the male-dominated northern tribes of Europe conquering the priestess-run, goddess-centered cultures of central, southern, and western Europe and forcing their own culture, language, and religion on those they conquered. And the Bible records the willful destruction of predecessor religions – including artifacts and literature – by the early Jews and Moslems (Stone, 1976). The battle for cultural and linguistic domination is a story reaching back at least seven to nine thousand years.
Multilingualism and Multiculturalism in the United States
The First Four Hundred Years
Is it any wonder then that the conflict and debate over cultural and linguistic plurality in this country began as soon as Columbus came to these shores (Zinn, 1980) and ultimately developed new dimensions? This debate has been continuous, often heated, and as divergent as the cultures and languages being addressed.
This has been a polyglot nation from the beginning (Castellanos, 1983; Crawford, 1992b). Columbus sailed primarily for his own personal financial enrichment and glory (Chomsky, 1993), but we need to note that he also was an Italian sailing on behalf of Spain. The first known immigrants – ancestors to those commonly called Native Americans – came across the Pacific land bridge from Asia (Castellanos, 1983) and perhaps on ships from a now-buried continent in the area we know as the South Pacific. And the first permanent European settlement on this continent – St. Augustine, Florida, founded in 1565 by Pedro Menendez de Aviles – remained Spanish for nearly 250 years (Castellanos, 1983), as the Spanish established themselves from (what is now) Chesapeake Bay to New Mexico long before the English (Catellanos, 1983; Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, 1542/1993). Indeed, even the French preceded the English (Catellanos, 1983; Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, 1542/1993), whose first permanent colony was not established until 1607 at Jamestown, 115 years after Columbus's arrival. Twelve years later, the first black slaves were imported (Castellanos, 1983), bringing with them their own native languages.
But by then the indigenous tribes of these two continents were already being subjugated and decimated (Zinn, 1980). Already planted were the seeds of a nation divided over cultural, ethnic, and linguistic issues: a nation which was and is anything but equal and just for all.
The common belief is that this nation was founded on the principles of equality, that it was designed as a melting pot of peoples, where all could come to be free and live the life they chose. This belief, however, is immeasurably distant from the truth. Most of the founders of this country were white, male, Anglo (Roosevelt, 1917; Zinn, 1980), and elitist (Chomsky, 1993; Zinn, 1980).
An 1837 Pennsylvania law mandated school instruction to be given equally in German and English. Yet Benjamin Franklin openly complained in a 1753 letter to Peter Collinson, member of the British Parliament, about the growing presence and influence of Germans – later known as Pennsylvania Dutch – in Pennsylvania, observing that they imported books from Germany and that two of the six publishers in Pennsylvania were German and two were German/English. “Few of their children in the Country learn English....Signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages, and in some places only German” (reprinted in Labaree, 1961, p. 234). He whined at interpreters being needed in the courts and speculated that Germans “will soon so out number [sic] us that all the advantages we have shall not, in My Opinion, be able to preserve our language” (reprinted in Labaree, 1961, p. 234).
I shall show later that linguistic, cultural, and racial complaints of this type were developed as tools for controlling the masses. Apparently, though, the Continental Congress was otherwise motivated, despite Franklin’s presence, since it printed numerous documents, including the Articles of Confederation, in both German and English (Crawford, 1992a). In fact, there was a point where a difference of only one vote would have made German the legislated official language of this country, rather than leaving English as the unlegislated presumed first language.
I have noted that the Spanish had established themselves on this continent long before the English. They also were taking a foothold in the central lands between the American continents and on the southern continent, and thus the framework for the battle over Spanish versus English, “Hispanic culture” versus “American culture,” was being laid.
But we need to remember how that hold was established. The Spaniards readily conquered the indigenous peoples they met, killing those who resisted, taking some as slaves, and leaving the remaining ones under Spanish rule (Anzaldúa, 1987; Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, 1542/1993; Smith, 1776). (I later document Rodriguez’s and Anzaldúa’s references to this period.)
Chomsky (1993) aptly tells us:
The conquest of the New World set off two vast demographic catastrophes unparalleled in history: the virtual destruction of the indigenous population of the Western hemisphere, and the devastation of Africa as the slave trade rapidly expanded to serve the needs of the conquerors, and the continent itself was subjugated. Much of Asia too suffered. (p. 5)
But after the British defeat of the Spanish Armada and further Spanish losses at the hands of the French, Spain’s influence in the world declined. The English rapidly became dominant in North America. And because of the many nationalities of Anglo America and the numerous indigenous nations, multilingualism was necessary for trading, scouting, teaching, and preaching (Castellanos, 1983).
At such a point, those in power are likely to start looking for ways to control the masses, in an effort to retain their own power over those masses. The most logical way to do this is to divide the masses and turn them inward against each other. If the general populace can be divided into opposing subgroups – haves and have-nots, insiders and outsiders, elite or semi-elite and despised – those in authority positions can establish themselves as the stabilizers and peace-makers of society and thus maintain control over that society, which they probably believe is rightfully theirs in the first place. And the most vulnerable place to turn people against each other is on the social and economic plane, since most people look first to their own survival (even as Franklin did), measured most frequently in terms of social and economic success. But establishing such divisions is difficult to do when there exist no obvious differences between individuals and groups, on which to blame social and economic inequalities. Thus, those who would create such divisions must find obvious differences between people, and the most obvious differences on which to draw are the very visible differences of race and culture and the very audible differences of language.
But such differences are not natural dividers. Contrary to what some intellectuals would have us believe, it is the differences between people which draw us together. Humans naturally tend to be curious, to solve problems by seeking understanding of that which confuses and confounds them. This is why women and men naturally gravitate toward each other. The initial attraction is in differences, not in similarities. In social, business, and political affiliations, too, we seek those who complement us and fill in the gaps, not those who would duplicate us.
At the beginning, then, race and linguistics are not natural dividers, but natural attractors and uniters. Linguistic disharmony, as racial disharmony, is unnatural; it can be only manufactured and manipulated, never born or created.
The founding fathers of this nation new this fact and used it (Zinn, 1980). They followed the example of Europe by conquering and subjugating the native peoples of the world where-ever they went, for economic purposes, then blaming those natives – often subtly – for their own decimation by calling them racially inferior and morally lacking (Chomsky, 1993; Zinn, 1980). Smith (1776) demonstrated this thinking well. He wrote that the discovery of America had opened up a new market for European manufacturing and financial wealth, but decried the “savage injustice” of the Europeans rendered toward the indigenous peoples of the world. Yet even Smith, while impugning the Europeans, portrayed the indigenous tribes of the Americas, except those of Peru and Mexico, as “mere savages.”
Of course, those who were conquered – Indigenous tribes and imported Africans alike – did not speak English, Spanish, German, or Dutch, the primary languages of their conquerors and enslavers. This lack of a common language made it even harder to control people who not only were culturally different but who were beginning to find ways to resist the domination of their subjugators.
Can we wonder, then, that soon after Smith recorded his comments, J. Adams (1780) proposed an “American Acadamie for refining, improving, and ascertaining the English language” (C. E. Adams, 1852, p. 249)? He noted similar academies in France, Spain, and Italy, as well as the lack of such an institution in England. He saw English filling the void left by Latin’s exit as a world language, saying English speakers would “force their language into general use, in spite of obstacles that may be thrown in their way” (C. E. Smith, 1852, p. 250), and felt this country should take the lead in that effort of force. He was rebuffed, however, by the Constitutional Convention, which viewed such schemes as elitist and intrusionist (Crawford, 1992b).
Noah Webster, too, expressed what he saw as a need for a monolinguistic standard (Crawford, 1992c).
Through all this, the voice of equal access and opportunity prevailed. In fact, California, officially bilingual for 30 years, published its first constitution in English and Spanish (Trasvina, 1988).
But matters ultimately would change. As English and German were being pushed on the northern continent, Spanish was being pushed on the southern continent, and other European tongues were coming across the Atlantic as well. With the growing rhetoric that a common language was required and that the native-speakers of the common language held economic, political, and social power, conflicts were bound to arise. With the indigenous tribes and the forced African imports effectively subjugated, those in power were bound to turn the people against the new immigrants of different tongues and cultures and, ultimately, against each other.
In the 1870s, the United States entered a period of exclusionary language sentiment and legislation. Following the 1876 election, Black Americans – who officially had been freed when a vacillating Abraham Lincoln was forced to sign the Emancipation Proclamation – came under the Jim Crow laws passed by several southern states. These included literacy requirements for voting and were applied to English-speaking Black Americans and non-English-speaking immigrants alike. Meanwhile, the Anti-Chinese Workingman’s Party got California's second constitutional convention to ratify that state's first English-only laws. This rhetorical maneuver effectively disenfranchised non-English-speaking Chinese from active participation in social affairs and education, and it was made even more effective when the California Supreme Court subsequently denied Chinese the right to testify in court and Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, suspending Chinese immigration and barring foreign-born Chinese from becoming citizens (Trasvina, 1988).
Legal expert Leibowitz (1976) notes that American literacy tests, such as those of the Jim Crow laws, have continued to be enacted by states for purposes of deliberate ethnic, nationalistic discrimination: in Connecticut and Massachusetts against the Irish in the 1850s, in the South against Blacks after the Civil War, in California against Hispanics and Asians in 1892, in Wyoming against Finns in 1897, in Washington against Chinese at the state’s founding in 1889, and in Alaska against Native Americans in 1926 (Leibowitz, 1984). In 1917, along with the creation of the “Asian Barred Zone,” Congress legally mandated literacy for immigration in an effort to reduce immigration from eastern and southern Europe.
The Early Twentieth Century
Roosevelt (1917), following on this theme, pulled metaphors from a 1906 play, The Melting Pot, to write:
We Americans are the children of the crucible....
The crucible must melt all who are cast in it; it must turn them out in one American mold...
All Americans of other race origin must act toward the countries from which their ancestors severally sprang as Washington and his associates in their day acted. Otherwise they are traitors to America....
We must have but one flag. We must also have but one language. That must be the language of the Declaration of Independence, of Washington's Farewell address, of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech and second inaugural. We cannot tolerate any attempt to oppose or supplant the language and culture that has come down to us from the builders of this Republic with the language and culture of any European country. (reprinted in Annals of America, 1968, pp. 129-131)
Roosevelt, however, ignored the fact that this country’s early European settlers and founding fathers had not “act[ed] toward the countries from which their ancestors severally sprang” by rejecting their old language, but had deliberately annihilated the language and culture which already were here, in favor of their ancestral language and culture. Roosevelt lied.
Later, the Anglo Conformity Movement and the anti-German sentiment of World War I inspired 20 midwestern states to bar schools from teaching German – once almost the official language of this country – while the Nebraska Act, in 1920, made English that state's official language, requiring English-only publication of state proceedings, as well as English-only instruction in all public, private, denominational (ignoring the separation of church and state), and parochial schools. The arguments for these laws were that a common language was needed and that children should not be confused by a second language (Trasvina, 1988).
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, found these laws to be violations of non-English-speaking people’s constitutional rights. Robert Meyer, a parochial school teacher in Hamilton County, Nebraska, under a 1919 statute which mandated English-only instruction in all public and private schools and allowed foreign-language instruction only after successful completion of the eighth grade, had been found guilty of teaching the Bible in German. The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld this decision, but in the 1923 case of Meyer v. Nebraska, The U. S. Supreme Court nullified restrictive state language laws in Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and other states. Justice James C. McReynolds wrote for the Court, “The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as those born with English on the tongue” (excerpted in Crawford, 1992c, p. 237). A similar decision was delivered in the case of Lau v. Nichols, 51 years later, as recorded by Justice William O. Douglas.
It seems obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer benefits than the English-speaking majority from respondents’ school system, which denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the education program – all earmarks of the discrimination banned by the Regulations. (excerpted in Crawford, 1992c, p. 253)
The court did not rule specifically for bilingual education since the plaintiffs made no such request. Nevertheless, the ruling was later used to justify various legislation aimed at promoting bilingual education, and the case stands as the major precedent regarding language minorities’ educational rights (Crawford, 1992c).
The 1960s to Today
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 removed literacy requirements and ostensibly guaranteed Blacks the right to vote. Then in 1968, Congress enacted the Bilingual Education Act in an effort to meet the educational needs of non-English-speaking children, particularly Florida Hispanics. This is significant to note, since even today, failure to enforce attendance rules, punishment for speaking Spanish in school, and outright educational discrimination are just some of the obstacles facing Hispanic youth (Crawford, 1992a).
In 1975, Congress concluded that Hispanics “have been denied equal educational opportunities by state and local governments resulting in severe disabilities and continuing illiteracy in the English language” and used the Voting Rights Act of 1975 to extend protection to Blacks, Indigenous Americans and Alaska Natives, and Asian Americans (Crawford, 1992a; Rodriguez, 1982).
Yet, this has not turned the tide of the Official English/English Only movement. In 1978, the Hawaii State Constitution was amended to make English and Hawaiian the official languages, but required Hawaiian for public acts and transactions “only as provided by law” (Crawford, 1992a).
In 1981, the Official English/English Only movement became official when Senator S. I. Hayakawa (R-CA) introduced the first modern Official English bill to Congress and founded U. S. English to support that legislation. Since then, bills have been introduced to every Congress by those who would amend the U.S. Constitution to make English the official language of the United States. In 1987 alone, five bills were introduced by Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC), Strom Thurmond (R-SC), Steven Symms (R-ID), Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Jake Garn (R-UT), along with Representatives Norman Shumway (R-CA), Clarence Miller (R-OH), William Broomfield (R-MI), and Virginia Smith (R-NE).
The bills all sought to make English-as-the-official-language the twenty-seventh amendment to the Constitution and to leave the implementation of that amendment up to Congress. Specifically, the Broomfield/Smith versions (H.J. Res. 13 and 60) would have barred state and federal governments from requiring the use of non-English languages in education, except when a student’s parental language was used in transitional English instruction. This exemption did not, however, include foreign-language instruction or provide for use of non-English languages in school communications to students and parents (Crawford, 1992a).
Numerous states have passed Official English/English Only laws and constitutional amendments in the last decade (California 1986, Arkansas 1987, Arizona 1988, Colorado 1988, Florida 1988). Specifically, the 1987 Arkansas law states, “This section shall not prohibit the public schools from performing their duty to provide equal education opportunities to all children” (excerpted in Crawford, 1992c, p. 133). The 1988 Arizona constitutional vote prohibited all other languages from the ballot, public schools, and government functions, except to assist students who are not proficient in the English language, to the extent necessary to comply with federal law,...to provide as rapid as possible a transition to English; to comply with other federal laws;...foreign language as part of a required or voluntary curriculum; to protect public health or safety; to protect the rights of criminal defendants or victims of crime. (excerpted in Crawford, 1992c, p. 133)
This action was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge on February 6, 1990 (Crawford, 1992c).
These are only a few of the Official English/English Only laws which have been enacted.
On the other side of the coin, though, since 1987, 20 states, including Washington, have passed English Plus statutes. English Plus, conducted by the English Plus Information Clearinghouse (EPIC), is a movement which promotes an expanded network of facilities for comprehensive English language instruction, [fostering] multiple language skills among all...people, in order to promote our position in the world marketplace and to strengthen our conduct of foreign relations, [encouraging the] retention and development of a person’s first language, [retaining and strengthening] the full range of language assistance policies and programs, including bilingual assistance, [rejecting the] objectives and premises of English Only (English Plus Information Clearinghouse, 1987, brochure), defeating any and all Official English legislation and initiatives, and the exchange of information, public education, and advocacy towards English Plus policies (English Plus Information Clearinghouse, 1987, brochure). EPIC was founded in 1987 under the auspices of the National Immigration, Refugee, and Citizenship Forum and the Joint National Committee for Languages, and it is endorsed by over 50 civil rights and educational organizations, ranging from the ACLU and the Disciples of Christ to the Haitian American Anti-Defamation League to a number of state organizations nationwide.