Last night, I got out of a meeting around 7:15 p.m. and thought immediately, “Super. I’ll make sure the English-only amendment failed.” It was almost 2 agonizing hours later when we finally got the word that this narrow-minded amendment had been defeated by Davidson County voters.
I spent a long post writing about my reasons for opposing the English-only amendment in December. But those of you who know me in real life know that I also have a very personal reason for wanting to live in a tolerant, inclusive place. I’ve been writing about English-only for a long time here at Fixin’ Supper, and my feelings about the issue have only gotten stronger over time.
My 3yo son was born in Guatemala. I adopted him as an infant. He is a U.S. citizen, though, just like Ahhnold, unqualified to be president. He’s the sweetest person I know and such a joy to our family. The most vivid imagination. The list goes on.
But in 10 or 12 years, he’s going to be a Latino teenager in a hoodie. Or whatever the prevailing teenage apparel of the day happens to be then. And it’s in his best interest, and mine, that he live in a community that does not judge him by the color of his skin.
Ideas like the English-only amendment may purport to be about saving the government money, or ensuring assimilation. As much as I would like to believe in the good inside English-only proponents, I have seen first-hand the kinds of reactions many people have to the proposal. English-only brings out our base instincts. It encourages us vs. them. It stokes racism.
You tell me. When we start dividing into us vs. them, I know which group my son will be in. He’ll always be an “us” to me. But which group will English-only partisans put my son in? How will they judge him? Will he be forced to carry his passport around with him to prove he’s a citizen? Will some racist jerks stop to check it before they beat him up because he and his friends walked down the wrong street?
Just as I believe that proposals that divide us are wrong, I believe we can create a welcoming, tolerant community that prevents my nightmare scenario above. I am so pleased to be a part of those who said “No” to intolerance yesterday. I hope we can calm the fears of those who supported it, to show them that intolerance is not a necessary response to change and difference.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
As always, since I can remember, well said. Here’s to a “United” country and I hope one day the rest of the country, and world for that matter, will remember that.
I’ve always found both sides of the argument to be fascinating. I disagree with the idea that it brings about “racism” as such; you’re an area of the nation that is already stereotyped as such and I don’t see how the problem can be made worse. That being said though, yes, it could generate problems.
At the same time, I wonder how many nations don’t have an official language? Many Americans admire Canadians and how many things are done up there — health care being foremost, but one thing they seem to be proud of is the perceived lack of racial issues. Canada has two official languages, both of which originate in decidedly Caucasian parts of the world. Singapore has 4, representing the cultures of the 3 predominant populations (and English, for the commerce).
All that said, I’m glad Nashvegas turned it down. This should be addressed on a national level, or not at all… and since popular sentiment would most likely not support such a thing on the Federal level, we should just scrap it altogether.