Jan
25
By Paolo von Schirach
January 25, 2012
WASHINGTON – Whatever his presidential credentials, let’s agree that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is not especially diplomatic in his public statements. Sometimes he is deliberately bombastic, just for effect. And so he attacks Romney for being an investor and thus a “bad” capitalist, as opposed to the “good” capitalists who really work hard for the welfare of their employees. So Romney is just a vulture. Now, really? Gingrich likes strong words and punch lines. He loves to stir up a crowd. He wants to deliver the applause line.
But in other cases, things he says “sound” offensive, even when they are not meant to be so. Case in point, now the Hispanic media is trying to get him because he said that “Spanish is a Ghetto language“. “What do you mean, Ghetto language, about a language that is spoken by hundreds of millions of people?” –retorted an appropriately resented Jorge Ramos, Univision anchorman, in a recent interview. (Probable comments among Gingrich supporters: “My Gosh, did Newt really say that? ”Spanish is a Ghetto language”? Did he really manage in one bold stroke to offend the entire 30 million strong Latino population in the US? Have we lost all those votes”? Yes, there is this little matter of the GOP primaries and then an election coming up.)
Immigrants who do not speak English live in a self-imposed Ghetto
Well, whatever the damage caused by his lack of grace, what Gingrich really meant to say, as he tried to explain (probably not successfully) in the Univision interview, is that all languages spoken in the US by people who live here but are not fluent in English become “Ghetto languages“, to the extent that those people, in large part because they do not speak English, are forced to live within their own ethnic enclaves, enclaves that become de facto Ghettos. I do believe that this is factually correct.
Gingrich also added that lack of English fluency condemns all foreigners (and not just Spanish speaking people) living in America to accept menial jobs in which interaction with others and/or use of the spoken and written English language is not important. And yes, this means accepting jobs as janitors, bus boys, maids, construction workers, landscape workers and the like. You cannot become a bank manager or a hospital administrator without speaking English.
So, Gingrich’s larger point is that in this country, in this society we should all agree that there is one national language that we all share. This language is the vehicle of business, of national commerce, of government and many other types of interactions. And this is the English language. We all gain by sharing this medium of expression, because this way we can all effectively communicate with one another. While his opening line about “Ghetto languages” was not the best, the argument is really flawless.
Is the notion of an American national language offensive?
In a different world this argument in favor of a shared language that would act as a bonding agent among various groups within a large society of 310 million, many of them foreign born, would be totally unobjectionable. But in these days of ridiculous sensitivities we have to celebrate the principle of “diversity“, even in its most absurd, counterproductive manifestations. Even to the extent of embracing as positive the fact that millions of immigrants who choose to live in this society, as they lack English proficiency, have no effective way to communicate with those who live outside their self imposed enclaves. (If the word “Ghetto” seems too strong, this what they are: ethnic enclaves).
On the surface, Gingrich sounded racist and this is what will stick
But, I am afraid that Gingrich reasoning is lost, as it is overwhelmed by the righteous resentment of ethnic groups that feel immediately offended by the use of “such insensitive language“. And so the narrative is not about Gingrich trying to help immigrants connect with the rest of America. No, the narrative among Latinos is going to be that Gingrich is a racist and that he has only contempt for their noble language.
As I said, Gingrich predilection for punch lines and his deliberate pursuit of theatrical effects does not help. But picking on words instead of trying to get to the underlying arguments and evaluating them for what they are, and not for what they superficially sound like, is truly disingenuous. Jorge Ramos of Univision, by playing the part of the offended Latin journalist, was playing to his gallery. Of course he knows better. He is a pretty sophisticated professional, the author of many books. He must know better. But, by looking incensed, because an “Anglo politician” seemingly offended “My People“, he makes good TV. Indeed, this feigned outrage is just so politically correct. But this is not the way to conduct any serious debate on language, immigration or anything else, for that matter. This is only about scoring points with our side. As for Gingrich, he probably lost a lot of Latino votes in the upcoming Florida primary.
Print This Post