Tag-Archive for » society «

Infrastructure fractures

Cruis­ing west on Cen­tral, past Coors, is never going to be the same again. I’ve watched it change, pas­sive eyes scan­ning the long, brown flats chock full of weeds green or brown as the sea­sons changed, from 5th grade through…well…now. Granted, I’m the pas­sen­ger less often, and par­al­lel to that there is less dirt, cov­ered over by con­crete foun­da­tions and tidy, American-dream-achieved homes. Just as many weeds though, they just grow closer together.

Regard­less, it used to be a hel­luva ride. First from 98th, where we turned east out of West­gate to head to church on 57th street every Sun­day (every Sun­day– every one), to later on when 86th was cut out of the dunes and later paved. They even­tu­ally put some side­walks, too. The long-awaited side­walks were the indi­ca­tion of civ­i­liza­tion. For almost a whole decade we lived, seem­ingly stranded, sep­a­rated from the city and its ameni­ties by an ever-swirling spring wind storm, with­out much more than the infor­mal con­crete curb to mark the place where peo­ple should drive, ver­sus the place where peo­ple should tromp through the sand in the awk­ward way sand makes one do so; it has the same sense of humor as snow piled up in substance-less drifts.

West­gate was for a long time before we ever arrived a neigh­bor­hood tucked out of the way, a micro-system that I par­tic­i­pated in as a ten year-old child and middle-schooler. My imme­di­ate, prac­ti­cal world view finally expanded while I attended West Mesa and ran around the greater north­west part of town. Coach Gee would lit­er­ally makes us run around all over the west side; from the ditch banks of the South Val­ley to the bike paths of Unser, in front of the pet­ro­glyphs, near St. Pious and Fly­ing J on 98th. Cross-country was my own per­sonal tour of the place where I lived, a place with which I suf­fered a con­flicted, slightly angry rela­tion­ship. Still, those places are for­ever embed­ded in my mind and in my emo­tional landscape.

As is Cen­tral; wide and dark, fast and dirty. It was an inevitable road in my life, the only way out of West­gate long before Unser, Blake, Tower and Bridge net­worked and expanded. 98th and Cen­tral, to Cen­tral and Unser, Cen­tral and Coors. To free­dom, new expe­ri­ences and the vast land­scape of a brand new coun­try, lan­guage and adven­ture. Sun­light enter­tained day­dreams and the deep­en­ing shad­ows cush­ioned dark fears as asphalt, white lines and adolescent-tall tum­ble­weeds rushed in place past us.

The ride from Cen­tral and Coors to Cen­tral and 98th was the per­fect stretch of road to lull one to sleep with a mind full of final, tired thoughts. After Wednes­day night church meet­ings, after long days of extra-curricular-related activ­i­ties, on the way home from friends’ houses or shop­ping expe­di­tions. The wide road curved up 9 Mile Hill in the dis­tance, vehi­cles of all sorts motor­ing their way steadily into the set­ting sun.

Ver­i­zon rose out of the desert sands behind Albertson’s and gave us a traf­fic light. The fash­ion spread like 21st cen­tury eco-mindfulness. Now, between Unser and 98th, there will be two more work­ing sem­a­phores. One is at as-of-yet uncar­ved inter­sec­tion, where the desert imme­di­ately south of Cen­tral is still curbed and unde­vel­oped. The other is at 86th and Cen­tral, the inter­sec­tion which became, unex­pect­edly, a rivulet of life & traf­fic, with the dol­lar store and the gas sta­tions rep­re­sent­ing the cul­mi­na­tion of human need for the dusty beings that live on the dunes, tucked away and oppos­ing the Sandias.

I’m not say­ing that there shouldn’t be traf­fic lights. First of all, BCFD Divi­sion Com­man­der Boris would, almost imper­cep­ti­bly and only momen­tar­ily, raise an eye­brow in dis­ap­proval of my fast and loose take on pub­lic safety. Hor­rific events play in my head, past human costs for the priv­i­lege of dri­ving fast in a metal death trap under the influ­ence of chem­i­cal inhibitors, cut­ting across the as-of-yet unlit roads of Albu­querque in the dark like a furtive noc­tur­nal rodent.

When I was in 7th grade I cov­ered the Gor­don House deba­cle for the Tru­man Mid­dle School news­pa­per, crap­pily imi­tat­ing the AP style in my first attempt at jour­nal­ism. My young mind gained its first rudi­men­tary under­stand­ing of drunk dri­ving and how it affects life in the wild west. The traf­fic lights are good, nay, nec­es­sary. It makes sense to inter­rupt the con­stant flow of machin­ery at high speeds. It’s good we can’t ramp it up to 65mph by the time we hit 98th from the healthy 45mph we were doing down Unser. The ride now takes a bit more delib­er­a­tion down that stretch as a frown­ing red sig­nal mod­er­ates the urge to push on the gas pedal, just a lit­tle further.

Yet I can’t feel but a bit of nos­tal­gia as I stare down Cen­tral for the nth time in my life, the engine faith­fully fir­ing as I man­age the lane change to the inside lane, visu­al­iz­ing the lean­ing turn onto 86th in t minus 5 min­utes after I turn off Unser. I no longer see an open road of poten­tial, as gen­er­a­tions before me saw it in the shim­mer­ing sun­set light that cast the mun­dane real­ity of every­day liv­ing in a con­tin­u­ous golden dream light of romance and adventure.

Route 66 is just that more civ­i­lized now as it courses through the lit­tle big out­post town of Albu­querque, New Mex­ico. We must be so proud to be so grown up.

Judging from your response, you’re (still) the racist…

The Repub­li­can reac­tion to the nom­i­na­tion of Sonia Sotomayor is pre­dictable and equally dis­ap­point­ing. I am baf­fled by their knee-jerk reac­tions. I learned how to con­trol that habit after I got mar­ried and to put up with some­one else’s opin­ion and way of doing things on a daily basis. Yet, it appears that the recur­sive advances made by this coun­try in socio-cultural mat­ters over­whelms the con­ser­v­a­tive right every sin­gle time. I fail to under­stand why they can’t take things in stride. They count on a sim­i­lar stride from oth­ers when they want the coun­try to amble in their direc­tion. Remov­ing reg­u­la­tions from banks, mort­gage lenders and other finan­cial insti­tu­tions? Sure! Buy­ing into the false notion of “clean coal” so that we may con­tinue to resist an energy par­a­digm shift? All it took was some TV ads. Accept a his­panic woman into the Supreme Court? HOLY SHIT ARE YOU FUCKING NUTS?

For­give the expli­tives, but you get the point more clearly that way. That was the reac­tion of the pun­dits, talk­ers and jig­gly ones on the right. I’ve heard some of the most out­ra­geous claims made against her as a result, includ­ing that of reverse racist. I become truly con­cerned when such notions and phrases begin to be tossed about care­lessly by those who ben­e­fit from their nor­mal­iza­tion and accep­tance in the social dia­logue. It’s a con­ve­nient cover behind which they receive reprieve from hav­ing to actu­ally work out the train of thought that proves otherwise.

The term itself is a red her­ring. It implies that is an ide­ol­ogy held by a minorty group that rec­i­p­ro­cates the ide­ol­ogy held by the major­ity. How­ever, racism exists across all of the social and cul­tural strata. One does not have to reverse it in any way for it to be less toxic an approach to life and oth­ers. To use the term reverse racism is to fur­ther entrench the racist atti­tude of the per­son mak­ing that claim. The pan-hispanic expe­ri­ence encom­passes a wide spec­trum of real­i­ties and beliefs. Sotomayor’s affil­i­a­tion with La RAZA means some­thing dif­fer­ent to her than the foun­da­tion of the orga­ni­za­tion meant to its founders. Yet, it’s easy enough to assume a racist atti­tude from her affil­i­a­tion with the orga­ni­za­tion, even if nei­ther her nor the founders truly felt that the browns were bet­ter than the whites (I am recoil­ing away from myself for hav­ing used such sim­plis­tic terms– but sim­plic­ity must be embraced in these cases). While I per­son­ally refrain from offi­cial affil­i­a­tions like that one for myself because of the com­pli­cated cul­tural cam­pus, it is out­ra­geous to accuse, assume or oth­er­wise amplify an erro­neous per­cep­tion of her mem­ber­ship and what it could mean.

I look for­ward to the day she is con­firmed and we can once again resusme our daily lives with­out being bom­barded by the fly­ing debris that results from the col­li­sion between Amer­i­can ideals and Amer­i­can real­i­ties. I admire Pres­i­dent Obama for under­tak­ing the cul­tural respon­si­bil­ity of bat­tling through such sites of racial ten­sion and growth. It’s not an easy task, which is why we haven’t worked on it as a soci­ety very often. I hope that the new gen­er­a­tions of Amer­i­cans, those my age and younger, regard­less of their views toward finances or soci­ety (whether con­ser­v­a­tive or lib­eral), will be able to sep­a­rate these objec­tive, quan­tifi­able issues from the irra­tional, unem­bod­ied fear that comes from the inevitable changes in the make-up of a large soci­ety and multi-shaded cul­ture like that of the United States.

Feli­ci­dades, Juez Sotomayor.

Señorita Ruth on: English Only Pt. 2

Are They Talk­ing About Me?
What are the ide­o­log­i­cal impli­ca­tions of choos­ing an offi­cial lan­guage? What kind of under­ly­ing belief sys­tem does it betray? A major marker of cul­ture and iden­tity, lan­guage sep­a­rates worlds of expe­ri­ence. And when it’s not your own, it’s often uncom­fort­able to have to deal with. Basic ques­tions that seem both ludi­crous and star­tlingly wor­ri­some express thoughts and assump­tions that begin to sur­face along the lines of “Are they talk­ing about me?” This may appear para­noid and self-centered, but is also a reflec­tion of the lin­guis­tic iso­la­tion mono­lin­gual Amer­i­can Eng­lish speak­ers expe­ri­ence on a daily basis. The unique geo­graph­i­cal posi­tion, along with the desires of the founders of the coun­try, have com­bined to cre­ate an insu­lar envi­ron­ment for Eng­lish, much more so than in other parts of the world. In addi­tion, Amer­i­can cit­i­zens speak one of the world’s most influ­en­tial lan­guages, afford­ing them lit­tle moti­va­tion to learn a sec­ond lan­guage beyond the cur­sory high school or col­lege cur­ricu­lum expe­ri­ence. As any bilin­gual speaker will tell you, that’s not really speak­ing two lan­guages at all.

So we have a nat­u­rally pro­tected envi­ron­ment for “one nation, one lan­guage” to func­tion as the ide­o­log­i­cal as well as the policy-based modus operandi. Our fore­fa­thers did not feel it was the role of gov­ern­ment to dic­tate to the peo­ple what lan­guages they should speak. Fur­ther­more, it was not uncom­mon in the early days of this coun­try, as it is now, for legal doc­u­ments, pam­phlets, and other offi­cial or quasi-official com­mu­ni­ca­tions to be pub­lished in the myr­iad of lan­guages that rep­re­sent our multi-cultural roots. Span­ish, Ger­man, French, and Dutch are a few of the first lan­guages immi­grants brought with them to add to the cul­tural and lin­guis­tic land­scape of a coun­try made up of trans­plants. From a healthy lin­guis­tic com­pe­ti­tion, Eng­lish emerged as the early win­ner, the lan­guage to bind speak­ers of many lan­guages together. To that effect, it is the de facto, con­ven­tional and fully accepted pri­mary lan­guage.

Nested within our overtly anglo­phonic cul­ture we have a long-standing tra­di­tion of multi-lingualism. Ves­tiges of true bilin­gual­ism exist in our efforts to expose chil­dren at every level of edu­ca­tion to other West­ern Euro­pean lan­guages. Even in the face of this tra­di­tion and ide­o­log­i­cal moti­va­tions behind cre­at­ing a coun­try with­out an offi­cial lan­guage, how­ever, there is a voice that in the form of leg­is­la­tion has asked both fed­eral and state-level gov­ern­ments to adopt Eng­lish as the offi­cial lan­guage of the United States. The cur­rent efforts by orga­ni­za­tions such as U.S. Eng­lish would see Eng­lish adopted as the offi­cial lan­guage, and in such a capac­ity dis­place lan­guages spo­ken in fam­i­lies and minor­ity com­mu­ni­ties more than ever before.

What has Eng­lish done for you?
Regard­less of its (lack of) offi­cial sta­tus, Eng­lish is the lan­guage of the peo­ple. Over­whelm­ingly used as the pri­mary lan­guage in all walks of life, Eng­lish is trans­mit­ted suc­cess­fully to the kids of every gen­er­a­tion, and of every cul­tural back­ground. The Amer­i­can pub­lic school sys­tems guar­an­tee trans­mis­sion by using Eng­lish both in the class­room and in the play­ground. It’s the lan­guage of for­mal edu­ca­tion as well as of infor­mal com­mu­ni­ca­tion. It’s present in every form of media, and is highly sought as a sec­ond lan­guage around the world and by non-native speak­ers in the U.S. Stud­ies show that even those with no for­mal sec­ond lan­guage edu­ca­tion, sim­ply by being immersed in the cul­ture, acquire a func­tional grasp of the lan­guage. Its far-reaching global sta­tus is rec­og­nized in Africa as well as Europe and Asia. It’s very appar­ent to the world that speak­ing Eng­lish is asso­ci­ated with socioe­co­nomic oppor­tu­ni­ties not avail­able in many people’s first lan­guage, there­fore it is desired. Most impor­tant to real­ize is that, even if not every per­son speaks Eng­lish in the U.S., those person’s chil­dren will. Remov­ing the abil­ity of non-fluent cit­i­zens and vis­i­tors the abil­ity to inter­act with the gov­ern­ment and within their own com­mu­ni­ties by enforc­ing Eng­lish Only doesn’t change the actu­al­i­ties of lan­guage use: Peo­ple have dif­fer­ent capac­i­ties to learn and retain a sec­ond lan­guage, but as long as that lan­guage is being taught as a first lan­guage, the sta­tus quo is nat­u­rally main­tained by the major­ity lan­guage.

English Only pol­icy seeks to reaf­firm a sta­tus that it has no right to either cre­ate or uphold. A lan­guage becomes widely used and influ­en­tial through use. Award­ing it a legal sta­tus changes lit­tle in the way it prop­a­gates through the greater cul­ture and soci­ety. Edu­ca­tion, the media, and the vari­ety of social exchanges that occur in Eng­lish are respon­si­ble for Eng­lish being the major­ity lan­guage. When under­stood in this light, the Eng­lish Only move­ment is hol­low and mean­ing­less, a mis­placed effort that could and should be used to attend to other, more press­ing mat­ters regard­ing the sta­tus of lan­guage and lan­guages in this coun­try.

Further­more, there are the ram­i­fi­ca­tions of legal­iz­ing a human cog­ni­tive facil­ity. Like many other efforts in the past to reg­u­late human behav­ior and cat­e­go­rize peo­ple accord­ing to eth­nic or genetic mark­ers, this effort will only work to strengthen the bound­aries of an arti­fice upon our cul­ture that we would do bet­ter with­out. Giv­ing Eng­lish legal sta­tus directly works against the social mech­a­nisms we have in place by which to iden­tify our­selves and each other. Gov­ern­ing people’s spo­ken lives will incur costs both finan­cial and cul­tural that we should not be pre­pared to shoul­der, and will doom yet another gen­er­a­tion to a pur­ga­tory of self-identity as the same words echo as have in the past: “I don’t know my mother tongue.” We as a soci­ety are still deal­ing with the after-effects of the Native Amer­i­cans who for­sook Navajo and other lan­guages after suf­fer­ing through board­ing schools and the rural ele­men­tary school chil­dren who suf­fered phys­i­cal pun­ish­ment for speak­ing Span­ish in the class­rooms of old Texas and the South­west. These peo­ple kept their own chil­dren from learn­ing their mother tongue to the detri­ment of their fam­ily and cul­tural iden­tity, and encour­aged them to only speak Eng­lish. The fal­lacy in these efforts is that the chil­dren of immi­grants become so quickly accul­tur­ated that any overt effort to do so by pre­vent­ing the learn­ing of another lan­guage is redun­dant and effec­tively irrel­e­vant. It should be the ideal of a pro­gres­sive, diverse soci­ety to encour­age a healthy lin­guis­tic home envi­ron­ment. Bilin­gual­ism should not have a neg­a­tive value when it comes to cit­i­zen­ship, par­tic­i­pa­tion and inte­gra­tion within the greater soci­ety.

English Only poli­cies will cast a reign of shad­ows over minor­ity lan­guage speak­ers. Legal immi­grants and Native Amer­i­cans alike who use the same ser­vices and inter­act with the same gov­ern­ment as native Eng­lish speak­ers stand to lose oppor­tu­ni­ties in offi­cial capac­i­ties. The time, effort, and money it takes to trans­late offi­cial U.S. doc­u­ments into other lan­guages has always been devoted to the same task since the 1700s, and in no way eclipses other gov­ern­ment spend­ing fig­ures which may or may not be as sig­nif­i­cant. Beyond the bureau­cratic con­se­quences, by accept­ing this pol­icy the coun­try runs the threat of expe­dit­ing the rate at which some lan­guages become extinct.

Ethics and Progress
Beyond the ques­tions of legal­ity, which on their own are sub­stan­tial, we also deal with the more abstract but just as cru­cial con­cepts that influ­enced the orig­i­nal deci­sion to do with­out an offi­cial lan­guage. It’s been pointed out that the fore­fa­thers couldn’t have pre­dicted how many lan­guages we have to deal with. Yet I won­der how sym­pa­thetic they would be to our plight if they com­pared their tech­nol­ogy to ours. We ben­e­fit from dig­i­tal media that have brought the world closer together, stan­dard­iz­ing and mak­ing avail­able more lan­guages to more peo­ple. It would stand to rea­son that we uti­lize these advan­tages to ben­e­fit all. How­ever, even these flimsy argu­ments side­step the under­ly­ing sen­ti­ment that dri­ves pol­icy efforts such a Eng­lish Only. Claim­ing patri­o­tism, these efforts eclipse more fun­da­men­tal mem­ber­ships that we should also feel a strong respon­si­bil­ity toward: Amer­i­can multi-cultural and multi-lingual cul­ture, and the human race, wherein every­one has an equal right to speak the lan­guage they were taught to express them­selves in.

Señorita Ruth on: English Only Pt. 1

Nations & Lan­guage
It’s easy to trace and under­stand the con­nec­tion between the ideas of “one nation” and “one lan­guage.” These sim­ple asso­ci­a­tions have out­lined the lan­guage poli­cies of west­ern Euro­pean coun­tries from the mid­dle of the 19th cen­tury for­ward. Even before that, con­quer­ing pow­ers have under­stood the fun­da­men­tal need to estab­lish a com­mon tongue amongst the newly con­quered, often wildly dif­fer­ent peo­ples they con­trolled. While effec­tive in build­ing a nation, these poli­cies have also neg­a­tively affected count­less lan­guages and cul­tures across the world. It’s true that the moti­va­tions for the expan­sion of any given nation or empire are usu­ally money, trade, and com­merce. How­ever, the under­ly­ing struc­ture of such endeav­ors is lan­guage. In order to suc­cess­fully inter­act with other cul­tures, even in the role of con­quer­ing or col­o­niz­ing power, the lan­guage “issue” must be addressed.

It would be dif­fi­cult to enu­mer­ate all the instances of lan­guages being aban­doned, by either will or force, for another as a result of cul­tural and social pres­sure. How­ever, I don’t have to stray far from the South­west to find evi­dence of mul­ti­ple efforts through­out his­tory to estab­lish, through force, the use of the Euro­pean lan­guage of power. First it was Span­ish, and then it was Eng­lish. The first estab­lished a trans-continental iden­tity for a large num­ber of inhab­i­tants of the Amer­i­cas, and the sec­ond rede­fined that iden­tity as polit­i­cal bor­ders changed and nations exchanged land for peace. As an exam­ple, New Mex­ico has belonged to the Span­ish Empire, the Mex­i­can nation, and of course the United States.

In this his­tory, we have instances of Native Amer­i­cans being force­fully accul­tur­ated into both Span­ish and Eng­lish speak­ing roles. A direct result of this forced accul­tur­a­tion is the loss of Native Amer­i­can lan­guages. Across the coun­try and the Amer­i­cas, the sta­tus of native tongues is dire as they are con­stantly decreas­ing in usage. This sit­u­a­tion is detri­men­tal to those that study the world’s lan­guages, but is more imme­di­ately a blow to the cul­tural and self-identity of the speak­ers. The puni­tive nature of forced accul­tur­a­tion becomes a deter­rent when peo­ple that have suf­fered pun­ish­ment are unwill­ing to pass on a minor­ity tongue to their chil­dren for fear of sim­i­lar reper­cus­sions on them.

Native Amer­i­cans were intro­duced to Span­ish in the 1600s, and it’s effected a notable dif­fer­ence in their respec­tive lan­guages from that time for­ward. Resis­tance to learn Span­ish helped pre­serve Navajo, Apache, the Pueblo lan­guages and oth­ers for 400 years. Yet it was impos­si­ble to suc­cess­fully fend off the Span­ish and later Eng­lish lan­guage influ­ences. There exist records, as they do all across the Amer­i­cas, of priests and other work­ers col­lect­ing the words and mean­ings of these unfa­mil­iar, rad­i­cally dif­fer­ent lan­guages. These records are invalu­able as lin­guists try to piece together lan­guages that are no longer fully real­ized in con­ver­sa­tion. Words and mean­ing have been lost beneath the wheels of progress in the major­ity lan­guage of the day, and even­tu­ally cen­tury.

Currently, in the same geo­graph­i­cal area, Eng­lish plays that role, sur­round­ing com­mu­ni­ties that speak Native Amer­i­can lan­guages, as well as Span­ish, Viet­namese, and other immi­grant lan­guages. What are the effects of hav­ing Eng­lish as a non-official major­ity lan­guage sur­round­ing Native Amer­i­can lan­guages that are on the decline in speak­ers? What are the effects of hav­ing lin­guis­tic and cul­tural con­tact with other major lan­guages of the world where Eng­lish is the major­ity and Span­ish, Hindi, Farsi, Ger­man or Korean are the minor­ity? These inter­ac­tions breed con­ster­na­tion and worry in some, inter­est and research ques­tions in lin­guists. For the sake of both, these issues must be addressed.

While the U.S. has never had an offi­cial lan­guage, a rar­ity in the day and age of the mod­ern nation-state, the ques­tion whether to adopt Eng­lish as the offi­cial lan­guage seems to remain uneasily unanswered.

© 2008-2010 Señorita Ruth All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright