"Are they my poor? . . ." (Emerson, "Self-Reliance").
When I taught ninth grade English, I had a second-generation immigrant student that got slapped at home whenever he spoke English to his Spanish-speaking parents. Notwithstanding this "discipline" may have occurred as he engaged in back talk, his story is not uncommon among immigrants who seem to be resistant to learning English in the public school classroom.
Growing up along the southwest Texas border, I've heard countless stories from older Mexican-American immigrants who, well into the 1960s, had their hands slapped for not speaking English in the classroom. It seems when it comes to language acquisition, the immigrant experience is a sort-of "schizophrenic impasse." It seems English Language Learners can't win for losing.
While teaching English along the southwest Texas border, I've witnessed first hand the challenge and resistance of English Language Learners (ELL) to adopt a language not native to their families or cultures. To them, this is not only an exchange of "linguistic currency," but it is also an exchange of "linguistic identity." In a sense, it's an exchange for one's identification with family, the thing held most dear, for identification with Ralph Waldo Emerson's "American Ideal," wherein lies the "infinitude of the private man."
Taking it for granted that much of one's personal identity is very much wrapped up in one's cultural identity, it would seem reasonable to assume that those who are in-between cultures are also in-between personal identities.
Instead of seeing this as an "exchange" of one identity for another, ELLs should be taught to see the adoption of the American Ideal as an "acquisition," where the culture and identity of one language is preserved and maintained, while the essence of the Self is also awakened and enhanced. Isn't this at the very heart of bilingual literacy, to allow students the room to maximize their own potential? Students don't have to lose their cultural identities to assimilate into the American Ideal. But, they might want to shed tradition, if tradition is holding them back.
At first, I wondered why there was so much resistance to adopting the native tongue of America. Why don't all immigrants just learn English? It would be much easier for them if they surrendered and assimilated into society, right? Heck, why wouldn't I think that? Aside from being semi-literate in Spanish, I'm pretty much monolingual. I don't have but one linguistic identity, so I don't really know what it's like to have to exchange who I am for who I am not (culturally speaking). If we follow Emerson's edict to resist history and tradition we might begin to see the "genius" within, we might begin to shed dependence upon cultural traditions and begin to rely more on one's self.
In "Self-Reliance," Emerson wrote, "If . . . a man claims to know and speak of God and carries you backward to the phraseology of some old moldered nation in another country, in another world, believe him not." He's referring to man's general tendency to adhere to Tradition; so much so, he turns it into an idol. In relation to immigrants coming to America from predominantly Catholic cultures, where Tradition is king, where the masses are taught to not question the Church, to passively believe in a dogma that prohibits critical thought, it seems "coming to America" turns this all upside down.
Taking it for granted that much of one's personal identity is very much wrapped up in one's cultural identity, it would seem reasonable to assume that those who are in-between cultures are also in-between personal identities.
Instead of seeing this as an "exchange" of one identity for another, ELLs should be taught to see the adoption of the American Ideal as an "acquisition," where the culture and identity of one language is preserved and maintained, while the essence of the Self is also awakened and enhanced. Isn't this at the very heart of bilingual literacy, to allow students the room to maximize their own potential? Students don't have to lose their cultural identities to assimilate into the American Ideal. But, they might want to shed tradition, if tradition is holding them back.
At first, I wondered why there was so much resistance to adopting the native tongue of America. Why don't all immigrants just learn English? It would be much easier for them if they surrendered and assimilated into society, right? Heck, why wouldn't I think that? Aside from being semi-literate in Spanish, I'm pretty much monolingual. I don't have but one linguistic identity, so I don't really know what it's like to have to exchange who I am for who I am not (culturally speaking). If we follow Emerson's edict to resist history and tradition we might begin to see the "genius" within, we might begin to shed dependence upon cultural traditions and begin to rely more on one's self.
In "Self-Reliance," Emerson wrote, "If . . . a man claims to know and speak of God and carries you backward to the phraseology of some old moldered nation in another country, in another world, believe him not." He's referring to man's general tendency to adhere to Tradition; so much so, he turns it into an idol. In relation to immigrants coming to America from predominantly Catholic cultures, where Tradition is king, where the masses are taught to not question the Church, to passively believe in a dogma that prohibits critical thought, it seems "coming to America" turns this all upside down.
As Americans expect people to take care of themselves, the immigrant, raised in a dependent value system or a value system of "dependency," it seems some conflict is inevitable, considering cultural illiteracy is to blame.
As I thought about it more, though, I became more sympathetic toward the immigrant experience. After looking more globally, more deeply at other cultures who have had the same challenges and resistances to English language acquisition, after looking at what the Irish have gone through, I started to better understand why those who come from Catholic countries have the hardest time adopting the American Ideal. "Whence then this worship of the past?" (Emerson, "Self-Reliance"). Due to its resistance to change, the Catholic Church has created scores of dependents who struggle to adopt Emersonian values. as such, "The centuries are conspirators against the sanity and authority of the soul" (Emerson, "Self-Reliance").
I particularly like when Emerson writes, "On my saying, 'What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within?' my friend suggested--'But these impulses may be from below, not from above.' I replied, 'They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil'" (Emerson, "Self-Reliance"). He encourages us to rely on our better judgement, to transcend the ideas and values of those who seek to control us. In essence, this is the American way, a way the immigrant has to learn.
For centuries, the Irish have faced many of the same struggles Spanish-speaking populations face today. As economic crises forced them to flee their native homelands, the Irish have had to assimilate into the English-speaking world. And, just like the Spanish-speaking immigrant, there has been a resistance to adopting the native tongue of England and America. Even today there is still a persistent struggle to adopt the King's English.
Not many people know this, but the Irish have had a language of their own that dates back centuries. Over time, as English became the language of commerce and education, due mostly to British occupation, the Irish have lost much of their native tongue and cultural heritage. Because of this "exchange," the Irish have been able to see the gradual decay of their identity affect the way they view the world and how they interpret history.
When poets like W. B. Yeats came along and taught the Irish that they've lost the "magic of their Celtic ways," mostly because they gave in to English occupation, the Irish grew increasingly resistant to English rules (referring both to the government and the language). As a result, Irish resistance has fomented lots of ire; it has fomented a lot of "troubles" in the North. Thanks a lot, Yeats!
Because of this resistance to English rules, the Irish have faced years of harsh discrimination from the English-speaking world, including in America, where many Irish could not find jobs, mostly due to their manners of speaking. It is very difficult to understand the Irish when they really ramp up a thick brogue. For the most part, because of their "functional illiteracy," the Irish have been targets of English jokes and the scapegoat for many social ills.
To be functionally literate, however, is to have a great enough literacy level to be able to get along in society. Without it, the immigrant is at a great disadvantage; he can't read a newspaper, he can't read a job application or an apartment lease, but, most important he can't interpret laws. As a result, the immigrant, no matter his country of origin becomes an sort of "indentured servant," held at the mercy of the justice system and governance of the society to which he emigrated. If any individual is functionally illiterate, s/he cannot fully function in society. It's not enough to live by the laws and values of an immigrant's homeland. When prisons in America are filled with inmates who are 70% functionally illiterate, it goes without saying language learning is at the core.
I understand that it's not realistic to ask an entire society to change it's way of life, to change its laws for the incoming immigrant. But, it is possible for teachers to explain to students that they can still maintain their heritage and culture, while also learning the new tongue and that this new language acquisition is necessary to ease their transition.
If it wasn't a Mexican-American kid getting slapped by his mother, but an Irish-American, would I have seen it differently? Would the mother have slapped him for not speaking Gaelic? She probably would've done something much worse like flog him with a sheleighleigh.
As I thought about it more, though, I became more sympathetic toward the immigrant experience. After looking more globally, more deeply at other cultures who have had the same challenges and resistances to English language acquisition, after looking at what the Irish have gone through, I started to better understand why those who come from Catholic countries have the hardest time adopting the American Ideal. "Whence then this worship of the past?" (Emerson, "Self-Reliance"). Due to its resistance to change, the Catholic Church has created scores of dependents who struggle to adopt Emersonian values. as such, "The centuries are conspirators against the sanity and authority of the soul" (Emerson, "Self-Reliance").
I particularly like when Emerson writes, "On my saying, 'What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within?' my friend suggested--'But these impulses may be from below, not from above.' I replied, 'They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil'" (Emerson, "Self-Reliance"). He encourages us to rely on our better judgement, to transcend the ideas and values of those who seek to control us. In essence, this is the American way, a way the immigrant has to learn.
For centuries, the Irish have faced many of the same struggles Spanish-speaking populations face today. As economic crises forced them to flee their native homelands, the Irish have had to assimilate into the English-speaking world. And, just like the Spanish-speaking immigrant, there has been a resistance to adopting the native tongue of England and America. Even today there is still a persistent struggle to adopt the King's English.
Not many people know this, but the Irish have had a language of their own that dates back centuries. Over time, as English became the language of commerce and education, due mostly to British occupation, the Irish have lost much of their native tongue and cultural heritage. Because of this "exchange," the Irish have been able to see the gradual decay of their identity affect the way they view the world and how they interpret history.
When poets like W. B. Yeats came along and taught the Irish that they've lost the "magic of their Celtic ways," mostly because they gave in to English occupation, the Irish grew increasingly resistant to English rules (referring both to the government and the language). As a result, Irish resistance has fomented lots of ire; it has fomented a lot of "troubles" in the North. Thanks a lot, Yeats!
Because of this resistance to English rules, the Irish have faced years of harsh discrimination from the English-speaking world, including in America, where many Irish could not find jobs, mostly due to their manners of speaking. It is very difficult to understand the Irish when they really ramp up a thick brogue. For the most part, because of their "functional illiteracy," the Irish have been targets of English jokes and the scapegoat for many social ills.
To be functionally literate, however, is to have a great enough literacy level to be able to get along in society. Without it, the immigrant is at a great disadvantage; he can't read a newspaper, he can't read a job application or an apartment lease, but, most important he can't interpret laws. As a result, the immigrant, no matter his country of origin becomes an sort of "indentured servant," held at the mercy of the justice system and governance of the society to which he emigrated. If any individual is functionally illiterate, s/he cannot fully function in society. It's not enough to live by the laws and values of an immigrant's homeland. When prisons in America are filled with inmates who are 70% functionally illiterate, it goes without saying language learning is at the core.
I understand that it's not realistic to ask an entire society to change it's way of life, to change its laws for the incoming immigrant. But, it is possible for teachers to explain to students that they can still maintain their heritage and culture, while also learning the new tongue and that this new language acquisition is necessary to ease their transition.
If it wasn't a Mexican-American kid getting slapped by his mother, but an Irish-American, would I have seen it differently? Would the mother have slapped him for not speaking Gaelic? She probably would've done something much worse like flog him with a sheleighleigh.
