::::::::
Via email, one tri-lingual reader requests that I not label him 'fascist' because he strongly believes that "all US citizens should be motivated to speak English. " So I am happy NOT to do what I have not done. My article is not about some vague, passively phrased "motivation. ""There is nothing fascistic about declaring a national language, " says a reader in the comments section. "They are only saying that official business of the USA is to be conducted in English. " Here the reader treats 'national language' and 'official business' as interchangeable terms and then argues that English is appropriate on both counts.
These declarations are problematic, as 34 Senators last week agreed. See votes for S. Amdt. 4073 (the more reasonable language of "common and unifying language ") vs S. Amdt. 4064 (the amendment that passed the "national language" clause).
For one thing, declaring a 'national language' is different from practicing an 'official language' of state. If the Senate kept to its business of running government language, that would one thing. But to legislate a 'national language' is something else.
For another thing, when the Senate further declared that when it comes to official language of state, nobody can expect the government to communicate in languages other than English, it contradicted the spirit of civil rights protections against discrimination on the basis of national origin.
A reader of German heritage brags that his heritage required no bi-lingualism before smirking that his name is not "Juan Valdez. " This too is a little fascist. The reference to Juan Valdez contrasts people of Latin American heritage with people of German heritage in order to emphasize a kind of collective superiority. That's a little fascist.
But what's more fascist is the tendency to erase history. When a person of German heritage flatly declares that bi-lingualism was not part of the German immigration experience in the USA, that person is reasoning from a sense of superiority, not from a knowledge of history. And that's a little fascist, too.
Another reader via email points out that becoming a citizen of the USA already requires some English proficiency, so what's the big deal? The big deal is that these important practices are undergoing revision in a hostile climate where the mere display of a "Mexican flag " is equated to "destruction of national unity. " The big deal is that this climate is pointing toward future practices that may very well be "a little more fascist " if we do not register some concern right now.
The big deal, moreover, is that when a liberal audience defends the climate shift toward more exclusionary language practices, and at the same time voices no concern whatsoever about the call to militarize the Mexican border, then the liberal audience itself provides evidence that a little fascism still goes a long way in the USA.
Finally, I do see one comment that does not refute the claim that "a little fascism " is evident here. The reader simply declares that the two-party system will be unable to reverse the trend. Perhaps this is true, I wouldn't deny the thesis outright. But it is worth noting in the near term that the immigrant rights movement more than any other recent issue has suddenly revealed an ability for some kind of opposition politics. And this is a little more anti-fascism than we've seen for the past five years.
Still, let me repeat, nobody is backing me up on the need to stop the deployment of troops to the Mexican border. In light of the things that readers are saying, don't you think the evidence shows that even among liberal audiences we're living in times that are a little fascist at least?
PS: I notice that when I use the term "fascist " lately, people tend to dismiss it as a mere "label. " But if anti-fascist is to have any meaning in practice, something more than a label must be applied.
