"Speak English, this is America!"

This week’s readings remind me of a question that I ask my classes each year on Columbus

Day... who was writing the History books? Who’s side of the story do we really have? I shine

light on what some other places celebrate on this day such as Dia de la Raza… Indigenous

People’s Day… and we have a rich discussion about these questions.

All three readings this week have a common theme: Assimilation has seemingly trumped

diversity in America. Colonization pushed out “foreign” languages while forcing assimilation

to “their” way of life: English and Christianity. The authors draw our attention to the fact that

those who do not speak standard English were and are looked at as “outsiders” or

“marginalized.”  But who were the real outsiders? It is in the name Native American that

their language and culture came first.  Unfortunately, from the very early stages of

colonization, native languages, cultures, and practices were pushed out.

In How Hawaiian Came Back From The Dead, we learn that some families, although they

want to preserve their Hawaiian culture and language, feel their children would fall behind in

the English-speaking job market. Alexandria Neason writes, “[they] must survive in a country

and economy that runs on English, one that expects its students to meet uniform standards

of learning in uniform ways. For this reason, the benefits of Hawaiian immersion schooling

don’t always register on the metrics through which America increasingly judges educational

success.” For some people, although the idea of the immersion school sounds ideal, the

fear is that children could be seen as inferior or unqualified coming from these types of

schools.

The laws against Hawaiian language being spoken eventually led to groups rising against

the pushback.  Teachers being threatened they would be fired if they spoke Hawaiian was

I’m sure one of the many reasons why many people fought to revive the language. I know,

as a Spanish and Italian teacher, that you cannot teach language without culture,

perspectives, and practices. These Hawaiians realized that “...reviving Hawaiian is also

about resuscitating the values embedded in it.” The article speaks about hula music and

dance and the passion behind it. You must be able to comprehend and appreciate the

culture and language to feel truly connected.

Coincidentally enough, I have several monolingual English-speaking friends who put their

children in Spanish immersion daycares and schools. I have heard many critiques from

people who just do not understand why they would do such a thing if they themselves

cannot even understand their child’s Spanish. The critics are vocal, and express their

numerous concerns stating that children may get confused or not be ready to be enrolled in

English classes or will (gasp) fall behind their English speaking peers. But, truth be told, and

as the article reads, “Students who learn in a language other than English experience no

long-term setbacks in developing language and literacy skills in English.” Many of these

children surpass their monolingual counterparts on assessments.

In What should teachers do? Ebonics and Culturally Responsive Instruction by Lisa Delpit,

we examine Standard English vs. Ebonics. The article speaks to how if we as teachers

constantly correct their grammar we will then find a room full of silent students, unwilling to

participate, and nervous to make mistakes. We also see how potentially damaging

correcting students while reading aloud can be versus pointing out the fact they can identify

content in a story. Rather than correcting over and over and making students feel

inadequate because of the way in which they speak, Delpit suggests to “...make the actual

study of language diversity a part of the curriculum” (33) What a fabulous (and familiar) idea

as we have been discussing this in class.

I think Delpit hits the nail on the head when she says, “The teacher must know how to

effectively teach reading and writing to students whose culture and language differ from that

of the school, and must understand how and why students decide to add another language

form to their repertoire.” (39).  It reminded me of some previous readings we had about

taking community and students lives into account and into the curriculum and schools, using

the students to create curriculum, rather than curriculum to “create” students.

In  When Tribal Sovereignty Challenges Democracy: American Indian Education Democratic

Ideal Tsianina Lomawaima and Teresa McCarty examine how standardization has

marginalized Native Americans and how diversity is feared. As a Spanish teacher, I have

experienced many debates about diversity and language. I have come to the defend the

importance and benefits of learning Spanish and emphasized that it will not take away from

English-speaking America, and that it will only enhance a person’s personal growth and

cultural/worldly sense.  

The article explains how there are “safe” and “dangerous” traditions in the Native American

world, and shows how many schools had to encourage assimilation and standardization to

put everyone on an even playing field at one point. I found this article that explains how

integration into a culture is better than assimilation. It expresses how people should not just

come into a different culture and forget all about their prior experiences and practices. Later,

people “envisioned the possibility that the nation not only could allow but could nurture

places of difference within the U.S. democracy.” (287)  This forced the question, “Which

aspects of Indian cultural life are perceived as safe enough to encourage, and which are too

dangerously different to be tolerated?” (287) This is the exact debate I still have today with

many people regarding Spanish speakers in the U.S. It is sad that many Americans feel

threatened by cultures and languages they do not understand or divide into safe vs.

dangerous categories. Even Donald Trump had a few short words to say about sticking to

English in the U.S.

My favorite quote of the reading serves as a conclusion for the blog when they write,

“...schools can be constructed as places of difference where children are free to learn,

question, and grow from a position that affirms who they are.” (299-300)  I mean, is there

really anything more we should want for our students but for them to be able to affirm who

they really are? I think all the readings shine light on three different perspectives of people

who want to preserve who they really are while in school, without ever having to disown

their native language, history, and culture.