Gingrich: Bilingual education="language of the ghetto"

Newt sure does pack them in.

I get paid more because I'm bilingual. Fuck you, Newt.

I must say, it's refreshing to see a politician with the balls to actually come out against education.

Don't you mean 'cajones'?

Except for a few people in the back, who responded, "Que?".

There is a real sickness in this country right now. And Herr Gingrich is definitely working it.

At a minimum, students should know a second language by the time they graduate from high school. At a minimum.

Having said that, and not wanting to defend this moron, I don't think he's really saying knowing 2 or more languages is bad. He's talking about "bilingual education".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilingual_education

There are serious criticisms that can be leveled against bilingual education as applied in the US, of course this idiot expresses it in the worst possible way, and only brings it up because it plays well with certain types of audiences.

Cajones is plural for cajón, which means boxes or drawers.

I hope you don't have boxy balls.

In my opinion calling something a ghetto language implies it's bad.

There's a legitimate argument to be made for tighter border control too-- but if he said it was because "we don't want those ghetto dwellers in our country" would you think he was doing anything but spewing hatred?

Just wanted to point out that "bilingual education" has very little to do with "foreign language" education.

His "ghetto" comment, I already pointed out the obvious stupidity here and his uneducated intended audience. I'm just pointing out something that should be obvious, but I don't think it is for many people.

As for "ghetto language" I don't even know what he's talking about. Does he mean, preservation of languages that keep you out of the mainstream? Bastardized versions of English (Spanglish) that he doesn't like? No idea ...

This is true. One of the definitions of "ghetto" is an isolated group. His point seems to be that mandating that public school classes be taught and public documents be printed in multiple languages, rather than requiring immigrants to learn English, results in further isolation of minority groups from the mainstream. He's saying that it makes no sense to cater to each of the many groups of immigrants who come to this country. It discourages them from learning the common language and culture of the US. It results in a nation that is not unified, but fragmented along ethnic and cultural lines. There's some logic to this argument.

I think a lot of people saw the word "ghetto" and immediately assumed it was a racist statement about Ebonics or something like that. Some probably think that he is discouraging Americans from learning a second language. That's not the case. He's making an argument against policies that he believes will result in cultural segregation and isolation which will weaken our nation. But, as Peter Zamora says in that CNN article, research has shown "that bilingual education is the best method of teaching English to non-English speakers." If that is true, Newt might want to reevaluate his stance.

I don't know, I think you're being awfully generous with the benefit of the doubt. While there is a defensible position in there (which you've just articulated), what he was really doing with his phrasing was playing to his audience's distrust of foreigners and reassuring them that English speakers are the "real" Americans.

It would be more polite to use the slang term huevos for his testiculos.

Of course, I'd prefer he be capado or at least silenciado.

First of all, ghetto is a charged word, and he ought to know that. But even if you do use the softer connotation, saying that these are ghetto languages and english is the language of prosperity is still completely dismissive of these people's cultures. How is that not hateful? I mean, at that point his stance on what language a math test should be in is completely fucking irrelevant.

Oh, probably. A politician of his stature and intelligence knows exactly what he's doing when using a word like that. It's the proper word to describe his point, but one that would elicit a knee-jerk response from some. That translates into press attention and discussions just like the one we're having.

While it's not a huge deal to me, making English the official US language is a big issue for a lot of conservatives who wish to maintain a common cultural identity. While some advocating this position do so out of racist fears, the idea makes some sense. A shared culture, of which language is a part, makes a person feel like a part of something bigger than him/herself. It helps to define a nation and unifies its people. If a citizen of a country feels more allegiance to a small, segregated cultural group or his country of origin than to the country in which he is living, it undermines the strength of that nation. Learning the common (but not official) language is a way of showing your acceptance of the common culture.

It's not dismissive of anyone's culture. It's the reality of bringing one culture to a country with an entirely different culture and refusing or failing to adapt.

Gingrich said:
This applies everywhere. Go to Korea, refuse to learn Korean, and see how far you get in Korean schools and in the Korean business world. Learn the common language of that country and you have a whole world of opportunities open up to you. Don't learn the language and you are isolated from the majority culture, i.e. ghettoized. But, like I explained above, Gingrich probably knew that using the word "ghetto" would illicit that kind of reaction. He also knew that his word choice would be defensible.

There's a gigantic difference between "failing to adapt" and keeping certain aspects of your cultural identity intact. Especially language, with its applicability to things as important as trade, foreign relations, etc...

By calling these languages ghetto, implying they are an impediment to assimilation, Gingrich is completely dismissing them at best, and saying they're bad for America at worst. Phrasing it a little differently could have made all the difference. He didn't though, and showed his hand.

He's not calling these languages "ghetto" in the sense you are using it. This has nothing to do with the slang use of the word. He's not saying that being bilingual or continuing to speak your native tongue is a bad thing. But the failure to also learn English in a country where that is the common language will serve to isolate you from the majority. He is speaking out against a government policy he feels will reinforce language and cultural barriers by allowing immigrants to get by without ever learning the common language or common culture.

If Gingrich represents the majority, who can blame them?

Bullshit. That's his defense, but he absolutely meant "ghetto" in the sense we were talking about.

When did this become a big issue, btw? Has there been a serious push to turn America into Quebec but with Spanish while I wasn't looking?

I think it's a side effect from the massive migration (both legal and non) coming up from Mexico in the past six or so years. There's been such a swell in the hispanic population that there seems to be a percieved "threat" that the English-speaking culture is being undermined.

You're arguing against what I already said I'm not arguing about. I am only saying that the second half of this statement "We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto" is offensive no matter what known definition of ghetto he's using. As I said, he could have phrased it differently, but he didn't. In my opinion this marginalizes the use of other languages in america and their history and traditions. I don't think it's at all accurate to state that using other languages in america ghettoize the speaker. And if they do, so much the worse for our country. Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not somebody should learn english, or that english should be the primary language our schools teach in. I am resopnding directly to the words, which were poorly chosen.

What Gingrich said was offensive, and wrong. We should be open to teaching kids multiple languages. However it is idiotic to try and run a country,with laws, signs, official documents, and currency, with a myriad of languages. We are an english speaking country, and while I actually enjoy hearing people speak in the different languages of their culture, american born citizens shouldn't be forced to become multilingual just to function in their own society.

One more time, bilingual education does not mean "teaching kids multiple languages". At all.

The US is the 5th largest Spanish speaking country in the world, and the population of Spanish speaking citizens will only increase. I don't see that as a bad thing, however, nobody is going to disagree that every citizen should know English. And I don't think anybody is really making that case.

I also don't know of any attempts to translate the currency to other languages.

As a number of people have pointed out, too, several of the States were part of Mexico before being purchased by the US--thus, they have ALWAYS had native Spanish speakers for as long as they've been part of the country. It's not like this is a recent development.

I think what happened was that Gingrich's Mexican staff started talking in Spanish about the "cheap-ass pendejo with the roaming hands."

I thought Yiddish was the language of the ghettos?