“I hear America translating…”

Steve Stajich
Mirror contributing writer

   Walt Whitman worked in English, and there has never been much controversy regarding his decision to do so. You can argue that not everybody ‘heard’ Whitman, in the same way that Allen Ginsburg never made that many appearances on the “Ed Sullivan” show.
   In the 60’s, comedian Bill Dana had great success with a character he called “José Jimenez.” Funny José would get into difficult situations, often made more rib-tickling because of his mangling of English. Funny José’s comedy albums used to be the stuff of morning drive radio. Things have changed, and hallelujah. Now you can listen to popular FM radio stations and get virulent dosages of sexism, ageism, juvenilia, and scatological obsession… along with the stereotyping. Yes, things are better now, here in the 21st century.
   It’s easy to pull on all the wrong paths we’ve taken in the past, but not as easy to find a path in the present. Witness a struggle going on right now in the chambers where city government and public local issue meetings are held.
   If the citizens assembled for such a meeting are overwhelmingly Latino, why not conduct the meeting in Spanish? For one reason, as reported in an LA Times story, the reporters present who are covering the event for transmission to a much larger audience… are English speaking and writing reporters. It’s more than a conundrum, since it goes to the core of democracy and representative government.
   There is a law regarding the mandate for “appropriate” translation when such situations involve “substantial” numbers of non-English persons. But past those ambiguous guidelines, there are no specifics to guide its proper execution. And I want to go to the next level with all this, not that this isn’t an important problem in and of itself. To be blunt about it, where is America going with all of its bi-lingual scenarios?
   Last week I watched a “Nightline” town hall rally hootenanny quilting bee or whatever handle they are using right now to describe those episodes where Ted Koppel lets real Americans speak on the big issues. I find those shows sometimes problematic, in that while their intent is magnificent, the reality can be that someone makes a wrong-headed statement and then there are reactions that drive the issue further into the bog of “opinion.” It’s that problem inherent in ABC’s “Politically Incorrect”: What’s worse than 9/11 musings from the outspoken star of “Four Dads And A Pizza?” The earnest reactions from the rest of the guests.
   So Koppel’s forum wanted to focus on the repeal of rights and the roughshod treatment of “suspects” and all the other troublesome business that has followed 9/11. But some of it dug back into the Japanese internment camps, and then we had some general expression of the state of racial profiling in American law enforcement, and then we had…in short, a mélange of completely important and relevant expression that vented feeling and widened our “view,” but didn’t move the questions toward… well, solution anyhow.
   I think that’s been the general case with all matters bi-lingual: There’s no shortage of righteous feeling. What might be desirable at this point, however, is something that moves us toward practical solutions. And by that, what I really mean is a decision on the critical issue of whether we have one language in this country. And behind that, a way to talk about it without ending up stuck in Koppel’s Bog.
   Because if we don’t have a national language, that’s fine. But are we ready with solutions to problems like a language of choice for local and state government meetings? I don’t think we are, and I think the core of it lies in facing the fact that reinforcing a language standard of English, far from being exclusionary, would eventually contribute to a stronger and healthier democracy. It would improve job opportunities and spread prosperity, assuming we back the notion with democratic, American access to learning. Difficult? Yes. Mired in alternative viewpoints? Unquestionably. Inevitable? I’m asking you.
   I want to believe that somewhere inside the murky darkness of what happened to us 9/11 is a kind of resolve to reach out to each other and recognize the real face of America. In shaking those hands, is it inherently wrong to want to understand each other when we speak?

This Week’s “Know Your News” Quiz

1) The election for president of SAG
   a) remained mired in contention and bitterness.
   b) was boosted by wonderful special effects.
   c) was picked up for a full 13 episodes.
2) Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon
   a) has a watch that runs backwards 25 years.
   b) says Gray Davis ignored state fiscal problems.
   c) denies the nickname “Warlock.”
3) A 20 foot Santa Claus has been
   a) removed from a U.S. 101 candy store.
   b) named Grammy new artist of the year.
   c) questioned by Ashcroft regarding 9/11.

Answer Key

(a) We’re ‘acting’ bitter.
(b) I’m ‘acting’ regressive.
(a) I’m ‘acting’ nostalgic.