I'll try and summarize the discussions in s.c.n/a.n, where the subject has
been aired, and add some computer-industry thoughts of my own at the end.
[Eric is speaking here of the "soc.culture.native" and "alt.native" Usenet
newsgroups. --Gary]
Our first, and we think the most cogent within the usual US political frame
of reference in which the "Official Language" arises, is that the position
that government should mandate English for any reason (usually the pseudo-
economic or pseudo-educational ones are offered), is utterly _incompatible_
with Conservatism as a US political philosophical tradition.
No principled US Conservative holds the view that mandating which language,
or which form of religious exercise, falls within the legitimate scope of
government. Principled US Conservatives hold the view that to do so is one
form of social engineering they associate to Liberalism as a political
philosophy.
Our reason for offering this first and foremost is that while "English Only"
is usually offered as a Conservative political tendency, it is actually one
form of Nativism, which California has a long and colorful history of, and
Good Government Republicans ought to be offered a way out of Nativist
attacks on their Party. Nativism minus philosophical conservatives leaves
the so-called "Social Conservatives" as more clearly racist aggressors.
Our second rational is outside of the normal scope of US internal political
rhetoric.
Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reads
that "In those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities
exist, person belonging...shall not be denied the right...to enjoy their own
culture, to...practice their own religion..." I'm sorry I don't have the
entire text, which included linguistic rights, not mearly the one found in
a text I archived.
"English Only" directly violates Article 27, and will result in litigation
before the World Court at the Hague, as the US is one such state where ethnic,
religious or linguistic minorities exist, and to make any such language
exterior to the political process of that state clearly and within the clear
intent of the framers of Article 27, denies the rights of speakers of those
languages to enjoy their culture, which includes that political process.
Our third rational is inside of the normal scope of US internal political
rhetoric.
Under the US Constitution, no "Official" language is defined. Clearly the
framers, who lived in a United States in which significant numbers of adult
males meeting the then qualifications for franchise spoke German, Dutch and
French, did not view their intent as willfully precluding all languages but
English from the political process they were creating, and no antecedent
for such a view is discernible from either the Federalist Papers and other
contemporary documents, or the Articles of Confederation, or any of the prior
Crown Colonial Charters.
A broad reading of Civil War era Amendments and case law to the present
extends the concept of discrimination to include language.
Finally, the two most common arguments for crypto-racism are the "business
case" and the "educational case".
Within the Pacific Rim the "business case" is obviously false. It is both
ahistorical and factually false to assert the contrary to the observation
that multiple economic communities using different languages, principally
Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Chinook Trade Pidgin, Hawaiian Pidgin, and
English have co-existed for centuries, in productive and relative tranquility,
except for periods of Nativist (Anglo-American/Canadian) violence, and do
continue to exist in the present and foreseeable future.
The educational case was well made by others, e.g., Leanne Hinton, James
Crawford and Geoffrey Nunberg, so I won't attempt to offer anything new
there.
One area where I can make a unique addition to the general area under
discussion is how "official English" will affect my profession, operating
systems, and internationalization.
The adoption of "official English" by any US governmental body will have
the result of making multi-lingual writing system support not mearly not
required, but potentially unlawful. The computer industry has spent over
a decade and millions of dollars developing the capability to support the
language requirements of Europeans, Asians, and Arabic/Hebrew speakers.
We rely upon the US market to provide about 60% of our revenue, with our
growth occuring primarialy in non-English market areas. Fundamental to
the cost of maintaining software is the minimization of different products
which have functional differences embedded in some common core technology.
All of the system vendors, and many of the linguistically advanced down-
stream software vendors and system integrators attempt to incorporate the
overseas linguistic capabilities into the common core product, the product
which is shipped in highest volumes to the US domestic market.
Were the US system vendors to loose their core market as one in which our
language capability were offered at no obvious additional cost, that is,
"bundled" into the basic product, and have to seperate out, as we are still
forced to for encryption technologies (for export), our long-term viability
in the face of overseas manufacturers who's core markets require exactly
this same capability, and with whom our vendors have cross-licensed both
ours and theirs language technologies, would be diminished. To put it very
simply, US-based vendors cost of business in Asia would be greater than
Japanese-based or Taiwan-based vendors cost of business in Asia and the US
if the US-based vendors "loose" the internal multi-lingual markets.
Additionally, within my industry "multiculturalism" is a business
necessity. Personally I work with Indians here and in India, Japanese here
and in Japan, Chinese here and in Taiwan on a daily basis. Only some of this
is due to my area of current specialization, internationalization. In the
computer industry labor and capital are only slightly majoritarian English
as a first language, and large parts of the industry within the US, from
parts assembly to systems and applications programming are done with only
minority English usage.
Looking towards the history of domestic partner benefits and Apple in the
State of Texas, it seems reasonable that Oregon computer manufacturers would
avoid endorsing or contributing to an "official English" campaign, if only
due to the probability of increased labor costs and a possible industry-
internal alteration of inter-vendor business relationships. In a nutshell,
Tektronix can't "go English", about a third of US computing professionals
would simply drop them as a vendor, as would all of Asia. Likewise, Intel
can't without serious difficulties with its Santa Clara labor force and
the possibility that the PC-clone vendors would use alternative i486 chip
vendors.
Well, back to work, and I hope this helps Alice and others,
Kitakitamatsinopowaw (I'll see you again)
-- Eric Brunner