Pedro's Musings

Pedro R. Portes (PRPORT01 who-is-at ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU)
Mon, 23 Sep 96 23:03:04 EDT

Professor in Educational Psychology_UNIV. OF LOUISVILLE, 40292
Phone: 588-0630__FAX 502-0726 310 SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Genieve;
It seems "easier" (historically) to see the intentionality of colonial policy
prior to the early 1900-50's. Suppression of the main mediational means was
but one of the tools to neutralize non-Anglo forces in nation- building.

Around this area (KY) where German immigration was considerable,laws in this
century forbade German in all schools.
(With respect to your other observation........)
However, the situation in Paraguay and other Andean contexts is far from ideal
and much different from that in North America. There, they represent the
majority of the population unlike here. Why? Two hunches, the policy was not
as bent on genocide perhaps and the populations of Native Americans were much
larger at that time (?).

Many still live under similar conditions to those found by the colonists. The
economic development of those countries with high concentrations of Native
Americans is much more limited and has not been able to penetrate many of
those groups. Yet, mono-linguals in other than Spanish/Portuguese languages
fare not that well. Alternators, those with mixed parentage in Peru, Bolivia
etc stand a much better chance of "success".

Diglossia (the condition of having the tongue tied ) is precisely the engine
of marginalization for NON-dominant tongue beings who cannot easily master the
means under present educational conditions. But it sure maintains cultural
continuity!
So does bilingualism (balanced) which opens the doors of choice. I know of
a case in the U.S. where
a student of Spanish/Latin origin, in which Dad ensured that the diglossia
of Spanish occurred intentionally, to allow for maximal assimilation. The
student is white, with a Spanish last name and culturally non-Latin, and has a
full blooded American identity. This case shows an instance of voluntary
tongue tying in which adaptation to the dominant culture was achieved at
the expense of the immigrant one. Who is to judge? Personally, I would feel
castrated in that case, (I better make it diglossed). This is different from
having a policy that makes the children involuntary victims.

In my view them, for those who cross borders in this life, regardless of their
nature, it appears that a bi-cultural competence policy is a must. For those
inside the dominant border, such is a plus. For those involuntarily outside
the dominant borders, the choice might be illusory at best. Pedro

REGARDS