Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907
Teddy (the good one, not the drunk jackass) had it right 100 years ago:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Copywrite 2007 - Barry G.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/07/17 @ 07:12 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/07/17 @ 08:18 AM — (Reply)
One ethnicity? Mularkey.
We are 50 states, yet one nation. Why have states at all, except that we recognized at the founding of our country that we are a varied people?
Variations have never weakened us. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...", powerful in English. Yet, the first time those words appeared to the public, they were in German, not English. On July 5th, 1776, the Philadelphischer Staatsboote, was the first newspaper to publish the full text of the newly ratified Declaration of Independence. "Wir halten diese Wahrheiten für ausgemacht..." Were these words any less true for the German-readers?
The English speakers already have their nation, it's called England.
This nation wasn't founded on the English language, it was founded on a basic principle that is as true in the English language as it is in German, Spanish, French, Russian, Hawaiian, Cherokee, Navajo or Samoan.
Noi consideriamo come verità evidenti
que todos los hombres nacen iguales
daß sie von ihrem Schöpfer mit gewissen unveräusserlichen Rechten begabt worden
diantaranya kehidupan, kebebasan dan usaha mengejar kebahagiaan.
Comment by Michael— 2007/07/17 @ 03:49 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/17 @ 08:09 PM — (Reply)
In France, for example, there is no concept of "-French." You are either considered to be French, or you are an outsider. Despite having a large population, there is not even the concept of an "Italo-French," the way that you and I can speak of an "Italian-American." If they aren't like other French, they aren't French.
In most European countries, ethinicity strongly (though not exactly) parallels nationalism. Most (but not all) Swedes are Swedish; most (but not all) Bulgarians are Magyars. However, ask the Basque if they are Spanish or French, and you'll understand that nationalism and ethnicity are not equivalent, and ethnicity is definitely NOT a subset of nationality. A Basque may be a citizen of Spain, but you aren't likely to find one calling themselves "Euskotar-Spanish" (or "Euskotar-French").
In many African countries, ethnicity and nationalism can be conflicting interests. The Hutu's and Tutsi's of Rwanda, Congo and Burundi are a bloody example of where ethnicities transcend national boundaries and supercede national interests. But there again, no one would call themselves "Hutu-Rwandan," they would be a Hutu, living in Rwanda.
I believe that Teddy mistook the hyphenation. An "Italian-American" is not an Italian living in America. It is an Italian who has chosen to become an American. That's what makes our country distinct. You cannot choose to be Italian, that is something you inherit from your parents, or your place of birth. You cannot choose to be black, or Chinese, or French, or any of the myriad ethnicities that exist. But you can choose to be an American, and that is why our nation is so great.
As for "official languages," that is such a red herring that it nauseates me, and you could do much better, Barry. If you were to simply say that we should encourage and support the teaching of the English language to new residents, I would be 100% behind you. That's almost self-evident. But it's the foolish assertion that the English language somehow needs to be defended against the onslaught of foreign tongues that makes me wonder if folks even bother to read history. Immigrants will assimilate into our country- they always have, and always will. There are enclaves where native tongues will out- there always have been, and will continue to be so. So what?? Have the Pennsylvania Dutch destroyed the English in their state? Or have the Cajuns ruined the English down in Lousiana?
America is more than language. It's more than ethnicity. It's freedom, and yes- that includes the freedom to retain whatever ethnicity you feel. Heck, it's the only country where EVERYONE is Irish for one day a year!
To answer your wondering: Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom and Vatican City are other nations that do not have an official language. Do you see any hue and cry coming from the Pope about protecting the Latin language??
Comment by Michael— 2007/07/19 @ 12:04 PM — (Reply)
Excellent points Michael. Perhaps it boils down to a question of semantics except amongst the true bigots (not you Burns).
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/07/19 @ 01:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Burns— 2007/07/17 @ 04:57 PM — (Reply)