More on the Power of Language

I have some theories as to why there is such hostility toward languages other than American English in the U.S. It's early morning here and I'm feeling "chatty," so I'm gonna spend a bit of time and type it out. Put your feet up, grab a cuppa and smoke 'em if ya got 'em. This is gonna be a doozie!

I say the hostility toward languages other than U.S. English is a combination of fear of others, fear of "scarcity," and cynical manipulation of those fears used as a diversion of blame.

First, I've not noticed the same hostility towards British English as there is against, say, Spanish. I don't notice a lot of Americans complaining about German in our schools, or Italian. French only recently came under fire after France refused to be part of the "coalition of the willing." And usually, any hostility toward a foreign language is followed by some epithet about "them damned foreigners!"

Well, you might say, there aren't a lot of German or Italian speaking people "inundating" our country, or even French speaking. But that's now. In our past, there were a lot of German, Italian, French and other foreign language speaking people coming to the U.S. During that time, there was also a "hue and cry" against "them damned foreigners!" There was even "tension" between the groups of foreigners. The Irish, when they came to the U.S. were reviled because they talked funny and they smelled funny and they were portrayed in the newspapers of the day as criminals and animals. As were the Chinese. In short, any group that "inundated" the U.S. has been labeled and despised by the "native" population. I think a lot of people forget or never learned this part of U.S. history, at least here in the U.S. We have a long history of hostility toward those who look or sound "different."

Now, add to that some fear and a perception that resources are finite; that is, there is only so much money to go around, only so much land, only so many jobs available to the "native" population who has a "Manifest Destiny" to achieve the "American Dream" for themselves and their "posterity" and sprinkle in a little public relations campaign promoting "conspicuous consumption" and we have one helluva a tool to control and manipulate "the unwashed masses."

I don't mean to make this sound like a conspiracy of people got together and planned an agenda to control and manipulate. I will argue, however, that it can be a convenient coincidence which can easily be exploited by whomever might benefit from making land more dear through scarcity. By whomever might benefit from keeping control of wages and jobs. By whomever might benefit from keeping our history from us. By whomever might benefit from our ignorance. Who benefits from lower wages? Who benefits from job "scarcity?" Who benefits if we and our children don't understand "the markets" and how money works? Who benefits from our ignorance, fear of scarcity, fear of and hostility towards others? Of those who benefit, who can influence our "common knowledge?"

A conspiracy? Who knows. Convenient and easily exploitable? Definitely. I remember in the months leading up to 9/11, there were stories beginning to come out about airlines that were heading for bankruptcy. "Fortunately" for them, they were able to exploit the horror of 9/11 to receive financial support. I know it sounds awful, I also know what I remember reading and hearing just before and just after 9/11. Do I think they caused 9/11? Nu, uh, no way. Do I think they'd use it to prop up their bottom-line? Oh, yeah. Several casinos in Vegas used 9/11 as their reason for laying off 25,000 employees within 2 weeks of the attack. The following first quarter reports showed those same casinos making record profits and their CEOs received substantial bonuses. Nike just made a large donation to some schools local to them. Just good neighbors? Training ground for future Nike employees with a future cost/benefit to their bottom-line? Large corporations donate buildings and wings of schools and hospitals. Altruism? Influence? Exploitation? Who knows.

So, to get back to the question of language. (Thought I'd forgot, huh? ) Which is more profitable for a business or land owners or even our government which increasingly profits from business monies? A population well and comfortably paid with benefits to secure their path to the "American Dream" for them and their "posterity?" Or, a population who will work for pittance wages with few or no benefits? Do businesses admit they could pay their employees more if only the CEO would take a cut in pay and benefits? Or do they blame low wages on "them damned foreigners" who work for their "competition" and artificially deflate the going wage so they can't pay more or they'll lose some of their profits? Profits, which by the way, are those monies left over after a business has met all their financial obligations; NOT the monies needed to stay in business. Do businesses go out of business because their profits are down; or does it just mean the CEO has to keep his car another year rather than buying the latest? And who's to blame? Why, "them damned foreigners." How can you tell who "them damned foreigners" are? They don't speak English, dammit!