Polite Kid

Well, why not resume my regular blog posts with a topic that is certain to be elicit sharply differing responses: Daniel Hannan -- who is himself controversial even on the right, expresses his opinion that the King James Bible is the greatest translation of all time.
I agree with him.
First, though, every time I make a reference to Hannan, someone will chime in that he is not on our side, not to be trusted, etc. I know his flaws and I may not agree with everything he says but he is right about many things. And he expresses himself with a clarity that is refreshing, especially by contrast with our forked-tongued American politicians and talking heads.
As for his high view of the King James Bible, that is, today, a controversial subject among Christians, and even non-Christians seem to feel strongly about it. There was a time when the King James Bible was THE version of the Bible for English-speaking people, although there have been others held in high regard, such as the Geneva Bible, which was the preferred translation for the Puritan fathers in this country. Actually the two versions seem very close, being both of them based in large part on the translation by Tyndale.
For being a partisan of the KJV, I have at least once been accused of 'bibliolatry', of worshipping a book rather than the Living God, which I think is a rather over-the-top accusation. To prefer that translation and to believe it inspired is not 'worship'. Tellingly, my liberal friend has used that same term as some of the conservative Christians who are negative toward the King James version.
So there are those who ridicule pro-KJV Christians, and then there are those who assert that 'the only way to get the real thing is to learn Koine Greek and Hebrew; the translations are flawed.' The fact is most people do not know Koine Greek and are not likely to learn it. Are we then left without a true version of the Bible, being deficient in ancient languages? Apparently so, according to these people. Apparently only the learned and the intellectually superior, then, can really read the Bible, since translations are not reliable.
Oddly the people who claim that all the existing translations are inadequate or flawed are often the people who claim that the latest 'modern' version is the best yet. The problem with that is that there are umpteen versions now, and new translations coming out every other day, it seems. That trend looks like going on indefinitely. It must be a profitable business for a number of people, this constant re-translating of the Bible and selling all the many new copies. And now of course there are Bibles aimed at every demographic. There are those hip new Bibles written in slangy modern American English, with some kind of trendy-looking covers to appeal to the young: Bibles covered in denim, or in Gothic-looking black, with fashionable typography. Then there are the Bibles especially for women, for blacks, for mothers, for dads.
It's all about packaging. But I've read through many of these upstart translations, and I find them to be lacking. The translations may have shed the archaic, old-timey style of the King James, but they are written in colorless, dull prose. The phrasings are often clumsy and awkward. They are flatfooted and unmemorable. Whatever you may say of the King James, it is written in a way that stays in the mind. Perhaps it's gone out of style to memorize Scripture, but it is infinitely easier to remember whole passages from the KJV than to learn and retain the same passages in the insipid prose of one of the newfangled translations.
Style, of course, is not all that matters -- though it does help to remember and retain the Scriptures, and it does add to the pleasure of reading. What matters is that with the more modern translations, somehow key meanings are changed, and it is just coincidental, I am sure, that certain passages having to do with homosexuality, for instance, are translated differently. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the references to homosexuals are changed in certain versions to 'homosexual offenders' or 'prostitutes', in other words, homosexuality in and of itself is suddenly not condemned.
The newer versions, written by committees of 'scholars' with appropriately PC views, often subtly, or not-so-subtly, alter the passages which are not acceptable to 21st century sensibilities. Politics, consciously or not, affects the changes that are made.
And in the quest for a 'perfect translation', have these 'improvers' in fact undermined for all time the idea that Scripture is inspired and not subject to a consensus, and not to be re-written every time fashions change, to suit the times?
If we admit that 'errors were made' in the KJV then errors have been made in all other translations, too, and will be made in every proposed new version. I suppose this does not really matter in that most professing Christians these days do not believe that Scripture can be inspired or inerrant, or that God can preserve it.
Hannan's piece is about the superior style of the King James Version, its greatness as literature. There was a time when in English literature classes, the KJV was studied as literature. I remember one of my college English lit professors including the Book of Job as one of the greatest pieces of literature in our language. But that is not PC today; I expect the Book of Job is replaced in the curriculum by something by one of the black female writers.
Regardless of whether we like or prefer the King James Bible, or even know it, we have all heard phrases and words from it; it is part of our linguistic heritage just as is Shakespeare. Of course to a Christian it is more than just another well-written book, and much more than a museum piece.
I didn't even read the comments at Hannan's blog; I looked at the first few and it appears that there are the usual detractors and scoffers along with a few pedants. I'd rather not read it; it would only leave me feeling more discouraged about the state of our post-Christian and post-Western world. And right now I need something more encouraging.
Hannan finishes his piece with this rather odd paragraph:
The English and their kindred peoples are, in my experience, rather less spiritual than Arabs, and it would not occur to them to make an equivalent claim. None the less, the Authorised Version stands as perhaps the greatest translation of all time. The day will eventually come when our power dwindles, and all our pomp of yesterday is one with Nineveh and Tyre. But as long as English is spoken, and our canon preserved, ours will never be just another country.''
The Arabs more 'spiritual' than we are? I am not so sure about that. And if the English-speaking countries are consigned to the dustheap of history, to use the cliché, then the KJV will not outlive us because those who will inherit the earth will discard it, along with all of our heritage. There will surely be a dark age if the West and especially the Anglosphere falls.

Labels: Bible, Christendom, English Heritage, English Language

Recently I read this Daily Mail article on the decline of the Southern American dialect, and of course this is a subject that is close to my heart.
According to a recent study, the upper and middle classes in the South are especially prone to lose their Southern accent or speech pattern.
The article quotes a Robin Dodsworth, the linguistics professor who collected recordings of Southern speech for the study. At the conclusion of the article, Dodsworth says that
''It's not realistic to talk about "saving" a dialect or accent,' she said, 'because the fact of life is that dialects change.
'The Southern accent the way we think of it now is different than the way people in the South talked 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and so forth.'
Oh yes, this is the politically correct 'descriptive-not-prescriptive' approach to linguistics, which I learned at the feet of my lefty linguistics teacher in college in the late 70s.
The thinking behind it is that standards are elitist, and that language is organic; it just grows, and nobody should try to control the growth in any direction; just let it follow its natural course like a meandering river. Grammar rules should not be emphasized, says this school of thought, because it stifles natural growth and change. Ebonics should be allowed to flourish, of course, because it is a natural outgrowth from vibrant black culture. Now, I wonder what Dodsworth would say if someone said they wanted to 'save' the black American dialect? I have a feeling the answer would be very different.
I didn't buy the PC view of linguistics back in college and I don't now. I think that 'change' in language, just as in culture generally, should be kept within limits, and that's done by not giving way to every change that comes along, such as ephemeral slang, (as the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary recently did) and by not letting things like social change and mass media influence change the regional dialects willy-nilly. Language would change in a chaotic way if we did not make efforts to preserve existing speech habits.
I've written before about how the Southern American dialect has been declining in recent decades, and how I noticed that the younger generations often speak a kind of generic media English and not the Southron dialect that their parents and grandparents speak. It shouldn't even be necessary to explain why I think that is a shame.
Michael at the Southern Nationalist Network blog writes about the Daily Mail article here. He notes that the media and the schools promote a negative view of our culture and Southron people, and that the message being received by young people about their heritage, including their dialect, is a negative one.
Just as most nationalists from around the world emphasize the importance of language in preserving a sense of identity and heritage, those with roots in the South should recognize that language is vital to a healthy sense of identity and heritage. The erosion of the dialect weakens the culture and the people of the South.
There's little doubt that many Americans outside the South tend to have a negative perception of Southern people, based on their speech patterns. I recently had someone tell me that she thought a certain new neighbor from the South was 'stupid' when she first met him, ''because of his accent.'' I am not sure why many Northerners think that people from the South sound 'ignorant' or dull-witted. Is it because of the comparatively slow way of speaking, the fabled 'drawl'? Or is it because of different locutions, syntax and grammar among real Southern speakers? Of course these critics take it for granted that their way of speaking is the 'right' way, without realizing that there are actually different dialects that have their own conventions and habits? This same acquaintance tends to think that any deviations from the dialect she speaks are absurd or wrong. That, my friends, is ignorance.
I think it's a shame that many young people think they need to conform to mass media English, as spoken on TV and in movies. They perceive the dialect their forefathers spoke as 'backward' or embarrassing. I understand the desire for peer approval at that age. When I first came up North as a teenager, I succumbed to the pressure to talk like those around me, because of the teasing and giggles that my accent elicited from my classmates. However pride in my heritage eventually overcame the desire to 'fit in'. I can speak 'standard' English if I choose, or I can revert to what is comfortable and speak Southron. It is true, also, that we tend to be influenced unconsciously by the way people speak around us, and being surrounded by 'standard' American English affects everybody, I suspect. And then there is the growing influence of black idioms: words like 'ho' and bling and other such ''enrichments.''
But what can we do? In the Daily Mail article, Dodsworth says that we can just 'keep speaking that way' and thus preserve our ways. It may not be that easy, especially with the societal change going on around us. I think there should be some effort to hold onto our linguistic heritage, and again, Michael at SNN speaks about such efforts in the video here.
He puts forth some good ideas on how this might be done. One of the projects mentioned is a Southern lexicon or dictionary. I had thought of doing that as a personal project over the last few years, but I think it needs to be a collaborative project with a number of people involved. There are a lot of different variations of the Southern dialect, and input from many different people would be ideal. Michael says contributions to a dictionary are welcome, and I think it's a worthwhile project.
I expect to have more to say about this in another post.
What say you all?

Labels: American Diversity, English Language, Southern Dialect, Southron Heritage

I've mentioned before that I collect ephemera, my favorite era being the early 20th century. I love learning about earlier times from the ephemera of the age: written material, magazines, even the ads tell a story. The artwork and the illustrations were often beautiful, much more so than today's counterparts.
One thing that catches my eye in the old ads and magazine articles is the presence of many upper-class people, dressed in their finery, attending some soigné event. Many of the domestic scenes in advertising depict elegant women at home with their housemaids. This kind of thing is conspicuously absent in our modern advertising, for obvious reasons. The world has turned upside down from what it was 100 years, or even 70 years ago. The egalitarian, downward-leveling trend has become the hallmark of our age. There are no clear class delineations as there were back then, with moneyed people and their luxuries. Nowadays, the rich often dress, act, and speak just like those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Think Paris Hilton.
And since the English language is on my mind these last few days, coincidentally I was just at a forum where the discussion centered on class
distinctions in the UK as reflected in language.
Apparently, there remain, despite all the leveling efforts of the leftists, differences in vocabulary as well as pronunciation in the UK.
This article from long-ago 1992 describes the class patterns in British English:
John Honey, an itinerant English professor educated at Cambridge and Oxford who is currently teaching in Japan, created a stir in Britain when his book was published. He urged Britons to acknowledge that speech accents are the coding of the class system and to strike a blow for equality by teaching everyone to speak the Queen's English, which Honey termed "received pronunciation," or R.P. The classic example of R.P. would be the crisp, clipped speech of most BBC news readers.
The Charles-Di split, then, is a matter of two different styles of upper-class speech. Prince Charles speaks a marked version of R.P. -- the upper-crust English, oozing privilege, spoken today mainly by senior members of the royal family, old Etonians and aging Oxford and Cambridge dons. R.P. speakers pronounce "cloth" as clawth and talk about the lorst pah of the British Empah (the "lost power of the British Empire").
Princess Diana has swung to the other end of the R.P. spectrum, occasionally assuming a trendy down-market variant, including traces of popular London speech, that approaches cockney. Its most prominent feature is "t-glotalling," which means strangling the final "t" in most words. Expert ears, for example, have detected Diana saying there's a lo' of i' abou' for "there's a lot of it about." '
From the perspective of today, it would appear that the 'received pronunciation' has long since lost the battle. I've noticed how 'the Queen's English' has been displaced in the British media by various regional accents and by more 'working-class' patterns of speech. When I watch old British films, (for example, today I saw ''Great Expectations" from 1946), the English spoken then is markedly different than that heard in the British media today.
There may be some of the older generation whose accents follow the old patterns but they seem to be few and far between.
I believe the cultural Marxists want to eliminate anything that hints at ''elitism'' and class distinctions and standards, the latter of which are
anathema to them in all areas of life. In the UK as in the United States and throughout the West, there is the mania for 'equality' and for a malicious pulling-down of those who are looked at superior or elite in some way.
And that, to me, is the crux of this issue of class distinctions in speech. The left is always busily destroying all vestiges of our former standards and ideals. Having distinctions of any kind amounts to ''discrimination" and this must always be stamped out.
This piece cuts to the chase, regarding speech:
Every detail of our selves and our lives � our appearance, speech, activities and associations � is perceived by others as an emblem of who we were, what we have become and where we fit in. The social profile of each person is recognizable and unique, like a fingerprint.
The ways we speak also reflect this combination of social similarity and diversity in fine detail.
[...]
Language has always helped to signify who we are in society, sometimes serving as a basis for exclusion. A Bible story tells how a password, shibboleth, was chosen because the enemy didn�t use the sh sound. "Shibboleth" has since come to signify an emblem of belief or membership, an identifiable sign of those who must stay outside the gate.
Societies use shibboleths in many ways. Indeed, speech is a convenient stand-in for other kinds of stigma that we recognize but do not openly acknowledge. For example, in our society, discrimination based on appearance, race, sex, religion or national origin is TABOO and often illegal, whereas discrimination based on particular details of language use by men or women, people of different religions, people from other countries and so on is often allowed.''
Do we have any class distinctions in speech in the United States? I would say we don't. It may be that some traditionally-minded people are unfavorably disposed towards those who have very uneducated speech, or strong regional accents in some cases. But this need not necessarily reflect a class bias, or a racial bias. We just tend to react somewhat negatively to someone who displays ignorance in their way of speaking.
It's often said, with some truth in the allegation, that people tend to judge those who speak with a Southern accent as ''ignorant'' or backward, even if the speaker uses impeccable grammar and syntax. The accent itself bears a stigma, I would say as much or more than ''ebonics''. And you'll notice I didn't specify that ''Northern people tend to judge'' Southern accents negatively -- just ''people.'' There are some who are born and bred in the South who carefully cultivate a neutral accent, modeling it on the media standard. Many of the younger generations do not sound Southron at all, even if their parents speak with a strong regional accent. I think this move away from the Southern speech is sometimes not a conscious thing; it's simply 'in' to speak standard American English as heard on TV or in Hollywood movies. Younger people who watch the mainstream media consciously or unconsciously absorb the accent they hear; it has connotations of being hip and cool, unlike the Southern drawl.
Other than that, however, we don't have a great deal of class distinction in our speech. Education these days does not do a very good job of educating. Sadly, most of those in academia these days are dedicated leftists who think that proper grammar and enunciation are ''elitist' and outmoded, as well as 'reactionary'. So who is there to uphold standards of good grammar and speech?
The linked PBS article argues (just as my linguistics professor did back in the 70s) that language is perpetually changing, and that we mustn't try to stop or impede the change. Language is 'organic', so the party line says. Languages just grow, like Topsy, and we can't control or even direct the change that inevitably happens. We can be 'descriptive' in discussing language, in other words, simply observe and note what we see and hear, but we can't be 'prescriptive' and uphold standards -- because everything is relative, you see. Who are we to judge the ebonics speakers or those who speak some sort of pidgin English or Spanglish or whatever argot?
A complex pattern of influences keeps the linguistic pot bubbling. Variation is everywhere. Change never stops. Language gatekeepers cannot control an ever-changing world of diversity. It�s hard on them, because in the gatekeepers' world, variation means error and change means decline.
What�s more, the very notion of a single standard of correctness in language is quite recent. "Correctness" is based solely on a purist�s own notion of what is socially or culturally correct: if it's not in, it must be out. A language purist works from a list of exceptions to the rule, ordinary speakers follow a hierarchy of patterns that reveal analogical similarities.''
Yes, the usual leftist arguments are heard in the realm of linguistics as in all other areas. Change is inevitable; embrace it. Celebrate it. Above all, don't judge it. Don't try to control it or contain it.
Change is sacred to the leftist.
And we ''language purists' who think (silly us) that there are rules and standards which apply to language just as to any other system, and who think that we should try to contain and direct change, are just sticks-in-the-mud who are impeding the 'diversity' and the richness of our ever-changing language.
I suppose we have to give the left some kind of credit for being consistent in their 'philosophy'. They are consistent to the point of being monomaniacal, when it comes to advancing their agenda in every area of life.
The larger question, though, is the loss of standards in our society.
I suppose it could be said that the beginnings of our country already contained the seed of our current obsession with 'equality' and leveling, which we see in the assault on all standards. Proper speech is now denigrated as archaic and rigid, the province of 'language purists'. Basic etiquette and social graces are scoffed at as passé and old-fashioned. Dress codes are going by the wayside, as people more and more tend to dress for 'comfort', regardless of the occasion. There are very few occasions for which Americans dress up nowadays. Jeans and T-shirts and athletic shoes are the universal uniform for all occasions from church on Sunday to the symphony. As I mentioned, even the wealthy are likely to slouch around in the ''uniform'' when in public.
Sexual mores, like all social standards, are now strictly up to the individual; who are we to judge? Tolerance of anything and everything is a mark of the sophisticated, ''enlightened'' 21st century American.
Profanity and obscenity are everywhere, with no respect for the people present. Oldsters, toddlers, nobody is spared the foul language.
The arts are no longer governed by any sort of rules regarding aesthetics or skill. This is true of the so-called 'fine arts' as well as popular culture.
Mediocrity and even ineptitude are no obstacle to attaining fame or success in the arts and popular entertainment.
Good taste has gone out the window; once I tried to discuss 'taste' with a liberal friend; it was a foreign language to her. ''Taste'' is an elitist construct, imposed by the aristocracy on the sainted common man.
The sad thing about all this is that the ''conservatives'' for the most part are rank egalitarians and levelers in most respects, just as the liberals and leftists. Perhaps the old American obsession with demolishing social class in general, the tradition of hating aristocracy, has gone too far. It seems to me that even conservatives have accepted many of the class warfare bromides of the left.
Our country was born from a revolution against English royalty, and there was an anti-aristocratic undertone to the slogans and sentiments of many of the Founding Fathers -- yet there was a movement to make George Washington a king, rather than President.
There was an old Southron aristocracy, and I am sure there were wastrels and other undesirables among their ranks, but on the other hand, many good men came out of that class: the aforementioned Washington, Thomas Jefferson, the Lees, the Pages, the Randolphs, the Taylors, and many more. Aristocracy is not an innately bad thing, provided they are principled.
Can anyone argue that democracy is preferable? How is it working out for us now?
Our forefathers, at least the Founding Fathers, opposed the idea of democracy and 'equality', despite Thomas Jefferson's unfortunate phrase ''all men are created equal."
Democracy does not exist for a long time - it wastes, exhausts and destroys itself. There was never a democracy that didn't kill itself" - Samuel Adams
"Democracy always leads to conflicts and instability, but never provides for the security of the citizens or their property. Usually it is very short at life, and very bloody at death" -- James Madison
There are many more such quotes in the same vein. Yet somehow Americans have become enamored of 'democracy' and equality.
Equality and liberty can't coexist. Neither can equality and standards. If we are to level everybody, standards must be pulled down; those who excel or distinguish themselves in any way are to be pounded down so as to prevent inequality.
Not so many decades ago, we had a culture which encouraged all, rich, poor, or middle-class, to aspire to civilized, genteel behavior. Children were taught to be polite and courteous, and respectful of elders. Girls, in particular, were taught social graces and were often sent to 'charm school' to learn how to groom themselves, carry themselves, and to be gracious.
Everybody could, and most did, aspire to ''better themselves." Even those from a poor background could become educated, or educate themselves, acquire some social polish, and improve their status in the world. Now, it seems every economic class emulates the lowest level of society. The gutter culture is 'cool.'
The old-style rich in America were standard-bearers. While there were 'black sheep' among them, in general they comported themselves well in public; it was considered part of the duty of the 'upper classes' to set an example. Now that we no longer have a wealthy class with any sense of noblesse oblige, or with a desire to uphold higher standards of behavior, we have no exemplars at all, except vapid celebrities, who are often troubled people with no detectable standards. Or there are the overpaid athletes who are idolized by many.
On this blog we've often discussed the leadership void. Leaders need not be politicians or 'statesmen' -- and how many of the latter even exist today? Leaders are standard-bearers and standard-setters. They are people who, at their best, honor and uphold social and cultural standards and traditions, and set an inspiring example. We all need something to which to aspire, and we all need to aspire to something honorable and worthy. We have few if any such leaders and standard-bearers now. I wonder if, by killing our aristocracy metaphorically, we have done ourselves in. We can see in history how much harm was caused by the Jacobins and their obliterating of class distinctions.
Standards are necessary; our mania for 'democracy' and 'equality' is proving to be very destructive to our society. I believe any effort to undo all the horrendous errors of the last five decades or so must include a renewed respect for quality, excellence, merit, and achievement, as well as for order and beauty.
We live in an ugly, sloppy age dominated by willful adolescents. At some point, the adults will have to reassert control.
The liberals say 'change never stops', and if they are right, then the pendulum has to swing back eventually.

Labels: Egalitarianism, English Language, History, Leadership, Social Class, Social Conservatism, Societal Decay

Chapter II in the 'shape up or....?' story begins with Newt Gingrich, who was on Fox News today, selling his dandy new '5-step Assimilation Plan' for immigrants. Now I confess that I didn't have time to catch the whole segment, and I saw only the beginning, where he began with the obligatory disclaimer, you know, the bit where the smarmy politician says 'I'm all in favor of legal immigration...' , so as to ward off the racism charges. Now that phrase usually causes me to reach for the remote, because I know that what follows will be some kind of half-hearted, serpent-tongued denunciation of illegal immigration, while still being immigrant-friendly.
However, I caught enough of Newt to hear him say that he favors legal immigration, and he believes that most immigrants come here because they want to be Americans, but they need to learn English. So we need to have a program for teaching them English, so that they assimilate.
Just as with John Howard's plea for immigrants to Australia to learn English and assimilate, as far as it goes, that idea is fine, but is it enough? Does speaking English guarantee assimilation? Yes, it is a part of assimilating, but does learning the language in and of itself lead inevitably to assimilating, and is it a proof of assimilation?
Learning English is the bare minimum of what we must expect of would-be immigrants. In fact if they are determined to come to this country, common sense would suggest that they ought to know some English even before they make the trip here. American culture is a worldwide thing these days, (to the chagrin of many people); so those who want to learn English can even learn a fair bit from movies or TV programs. Enterprising immigrants of the past have learned English in that fashion. However, as we know, there are many outwardly-acculturated immigrants and even children of immigrants who are not assimilated. Yesterday I mentioned the Lackawanna Six, the terror plotters who had grown up in an American suburb, but who were conspiring towards some act of terror towards 'fellow' Americans. The 7/7 bombers in the UK are another example of outwardly assimilated Moslems who were so full of hatred towards those whose country had nurtured and educated them that they were willing to kill others, strangers, and even themselves for their twisted ideals. Speaking fluent English, using the latest youth slang, made none of these young people part of the countries they lived in. They were in the country but not of it. The 'we' they identified with was not Britain, or the United States, but the Islamic 'we.' Just as many of our Latino immigrants, and even native-born Hispanics, identify with their Raza, their 'gente', and fly the Mexican flag or the Dominican flag or whatever, pledging their allegiance to their blood kin, not to Americans.
So Gingrich is peddling facile, cheap answers, and in doing so, is furthering the multicultural agenda. If he can lull the easily-pleased among us into thinking that we can solve the difficult problems of mass immigration by his '5-step program', then he is part of the problem. He is promoting, by implication, the idea that we are all really the same, and interchangeable, if only we all learn a common language and participate in a common, lowest common denominator mass culture.
Evidently Newt is one of those who believes that everybody is potentially an American, but the evidence of reality and common sense tells us that not everybody is equally assimilable, and further, that maybe some are not assimilable in any real sense at all. But admitting this is denying the liberal presuppositions of egalitarianism, and the core liberal idea that we all self-create, and that the key is to make immigrants want to be American. We just have to get them to want to re-invent themselves as Americans, and the way to do that is to have a 5-step program, or reach out to them, and so on; just the kind of thing the neoconservatives in the GOP have been pushing.
Why are some immigrants seemingly impervious to assimilation, or Americanization, as it used to be called? The real ideologues among us would deny that such is the case. They will continue to insist that everybody is the same, despite surface differences. But history indicates otherwise. In the past, most of our immigrants came from European cultures, and the process of acculturation and assimilation were relatively easy, although some groups have been much slower to assimilate. We might argue that some groups have resisted assimilation, and this is true to the extent that their cultures were dissimilar to the core Anglo-Saxon Protestant American culture. But eventually most European immigrants did assimilate. However with our current predominantly non-Western immigrants, legal and illegal, their cultures are at odds with our own to a considerable extent; their mores, their habits, their ways, are distant from our own. Add to this the fact that most of our immigrants of today come from cultures in which Westerners, especially Americans, are viewed negatively. Americans in particular may be envied by many but they are also greatly resented. Many people in Third World countries view Americans as obscenely rich, and expect handouts from Americans as their due. I learned this first-hand, when my home address was made known in a publication, and I began to receive begging -- and demanding -- letters from strangers in African countries. They assumed that all Americans were fabulously rich and that they need only ask, and receive money or gifts. I suppose the 'Nigerian e-mail scam' had not been thought of yet, but the same phenomenon is at work there. Americans are seen, at best, as rich, gullible, and there for the fleecing. At worst, we are pictured as exploiters, oppressors, usurpers of their territory, in the case of our Latino neighbors. Now what can be expected when we import these attitudes en masse to our country? And can a few English lessons, or even fluency in English hope to counter all of that? In fact, when the immigrants are fluent enough in English to watch American TV and read English-language newspapers, they will simply be exposed to even more anti-American propaganda, as served up by our leftist entertainment media and news media. Our educational system, too, is riddled with disparaging messages about American history and American society.
Assimilation worked, in the past, for several reasons: we were selective about who we admitted to this country. They came from compatible countries, and we limited the numbers. We never admitted immigrants indiscriminately as we are doing now with our de facto open borders. Large numbers of immigrants, and the establishment of immigrant enclaves were never part of the plan.
We were able to assimilate immigrants in part, too, because ours was a confident, assertive culture, and we did not adopt a weak, appeasing attitude to newcomers.
There was no large-scale support for foreign-language communities in old America; they were expected to learn English, and most of them did so willingly. Few or none of our past immigrants came here with a grudge against America for some perceived past wrong or injustice. Few or none came here with the intent of doing harm to Americans or of subverting American society, or reclaiming it in the name of their native country.
Now, we are recklessly opening the doors to people who may well have a subversive agenda, as at least some of our Hispanic immigrants, or they may even desire to actually kill and destroy, as the 9/11 hijackers did.
Another complicating factor in our policies of admitting mostly third-world, minority immigrants is our current, ongoing racial issues. America, since the 1960s especially, has been embroiled in the mainstreaming of black Americans into our society. As a result, the more extreme black leaders perpetuate racial conflict and a whole industry built on the guilt feelings of the American majority. We are still trying to negotiate our way beyond that impasse, and now, into the middle of an already difficult situation, we import millions of non-white immigrants who are now adding their voices to the chorus of grievances against majority America. We now have preferential policies like 'Affirmative Action', supposedly in the name of making restitution for past discrimination (two wrongs apparently do make a right, according to some), and now the newly-arrived minorities, who have absolutely no claim to having been 'historic victims of discrimination' in America, are now entitled to all the benefits of AA, as well as many other social entitlements based on skin color or ethnicity. Now, thanks to mass third-world immigration, majority Americans have millions of new claimants to special considerations, and eligible for benefits. How will this all play out when the American majority is the new minority? How will the descendants of majority Americans, as an outnumbered minority, still be expected to make amends and restitution to an aggrieved collection of former minorities?
None of those who have concocted this present insane immigration policy has ever addressed any of these questions. Instead they pretend that things can go on just as they are, even when the demographics of this country are absolutely turned on their head, with today's majority reduced to a minority. But considerations like this don't enter the minds of the social engineers. And I consider Newt to be as much a part of the problem as any of the rest of the immigration enthusiasts.
Newt, how many is too many? Does this country have a carrying capacity? Or do we just keep on packing them in until we reach India-style population density? And by the way, Mr. Arch-conservative Newt, what about the economic burden all this immigration creates? Aren't conservatives supposed to be the small government guys, the ones who crunch the numbers and see that we aren't living beyond our means? Where's the fiscal responsibility?
On a much smaller scale, I wonder what the costs of Newt's little 'assimilation program' would be? Our government already spends, big-time, on 'Hispanic outreach', interpreters, counselors, special studies of the Hispanic population and their needs, educational programs, subsidized tuition for illegal students, Hispanic health programs, special small-business programs, and so on. We are not even talking about the other costs, such as the bankrupt hospitals, overcrowded jails, overloaded courts, crimes by immigrants and the resultant expenses, lives lost via immigrant crime, costs of monitoring possible Moslem terror activities -- I could go on, but we all know. Yet we have to spend even more money to spoon-feed reluctant immigrants the English language? Just take away all the bilingual documents and teachers, take away Univision and Telemundo and all the rest of the bilingual catering, and they might just have to learn English.
But even if they all learn fluent English, that will not be a solution to the problem, which is that we have too many immigrants, too fast, and at too high a cost to our society in cultural terms as well as financial terms. The levels of immigration we have now are unprecedented in American history, I think the same can be said for many Western countries, like Australia, the UK, France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Something hitherto unknown is being carried out in the West, and nobody, not our politicians or academics or media, none of them know where it it leading us, or what the end result will be. Those of us who are not woolly-minded academics or loopy leftist utopians know that the result will not be a utopia. We do know, based on demographic projections, that we majority Western peoples will be on the outside looking in, dispossessed in our own countries, and with nowhere to go. To believe, as some people are content to say they do, that all the problems will work themselves out, and people will just learn to get along, is highly unrealistic. That kind of faith, at least in human beings, is something I don't have; it's a huge leap in the dark.
The only hope our country has is for a resurgence of real, genuine conservatism, which in true conservative fashion, is willing to take a hard-eyed look at where we are, on the edge of a precipice, and to speak the truth about the situation. From there, we need to try to find a way to step back from the precipice, if we want to preserve our countries as we have known them, and to preserve a way of life which it took our ancestors many generations of toil and blood to achieve. If 'conservatives' are willing to throw all that away, gambling on some bizarre exercise in social engineering on a global scale, then that is proof that they are not conservatives in any real sense at all. Any conservative, falsely so-called, who promotes mass immigration, or unending immigration, is deceived or deceiving us.
At this moment in our history, the primary concern should be preserving our country, our people, our way of life, our heritage. Everything else is a secondary consideration.
Everything.

Labels: Assimilation, Conservatives, English Language, Immigration

Over at Conservative Heritage Times, 'Harrison Bergeron' has posted
Some Words to Punch Out Smuggers
If you don't know what a smugger is, read on. 'Harrison Bergeron' writes this introduction to a piece by John Vinson:
John Vinson has put together a "self-defense manual" for immigration-control activists and conservatives. It�s clever, deadly accurate, and more useful than a Swiss army knife. ( I forsee such gems as "ethno-masochist" and "tolerance taliban" quickly entering the general vocabulary.) Read, enjoy, and once you�ve memorized these handly phrases, lock and load and fire at will. MCT
[...]
''Those who attack us physically we call muggers. To help people deal with them, there are self-defense manuals which recommend various kicks, punches and chops to fight back. Emotional attacks can be quite painful too, as many immigration reformers can testify. Often they must cope with "smuggers," assailants who project in word and gesture their smug sense of moral, social, and intellectual superiority.
To deal with both muggers and smuggers, it is good to be aware of your surroundings. Muggers often dwell in run-down sections of town. Smuggers often thrive in universities, media outlets and other ghettos of political correctness. When passing the haunts of muggers and smuggers, it�s a good idea to project an air of confidence.
Nevertheless, you shouldn�t always treat them the same. It is dangerous, for example, to throw ridicule at a mugger. That�s likely to make him more violent. But words of derision can often punch out the smugger�s pomposity. We may not like using such words, but it�s the only language that bullies, like smuggers, understand. Maybe if hit enough, they will become sufficiently civil to engage in reasonable debate.
I encourage you to read the list of 'verbal punches' to throw at the 'smuggers.' The list is a good way to fight fire with fire; the left has a handy lexicon of insults and labels to use against us, and some of Vinson's labels are clever and catchy. For instance, I like 'Tolerance Taliban' and 'PC Poodle' -- both of which are self-explanatory. Some of these have already caught on, like 'globaloney', 'multicultist', 'treason lobby'.
'Race card shark' is a good one; 'neo-com' has a certain ring to it:
A neo-communist. A follower of the mutated communism (political correctness) derived from the Frankfurt School.''
And the word 'xenophile' fills a need for a word to describe people with 'an excessive love for foreigners.'
I use the word xenophiliac also; I like that the suffix '-philiac' somehow has associations with perversion, which is fitting; loving strangers in preference to your own kin is not natural.
It's a fun list, and it makes us think about how language is often used by the left to discredit views they disagree with; why not use their own tactics against them?

Labels: English Language, Leftism, Liberalism, Political Correctness, Politics

Here's a quiz that's been showing up around the blogosphere:
What American accent do you have?
I took the quiz and was told that I have a 'Midlands' accent, which is odd, because the 'Midlands' is one region I have spent very little time in. I found the test questions to be a little dubious, but it's an interesting quiz.
This quiz was more to the point, in my opinion:
Are You a Yankee or a Rebel?
My answer was: ''100% Dixie. Is General Lee your grandfather?''
At least that result makes more sense for me.
One of the aspects of 'vanishing America' that is noticeable these days is changing speech. In this age of mass, cheap travel and unprecedented mobility, along with the monolithic mass media, from whose grasp no one escapes these days, American English is changing rapidly everywhere.
The media and the constant change, the search for novelty and the 'coolness' factor are the biggest contributors to change in our language, what with all the slang and colloquial speech which is spread virally via the media.
The Internet may also contribute to the spread of slang and colloquialisms, with its own unique jargon (think of terms like 'Newbie', websurfing, 'blog', and all the shorthand terms and acronyms like 'LOL' and 'IMHO'. Of course text messaging and its crude abbreviations contribute to the dumbing down of our communication, and to a lesser extent, e-mail.
Still, TV, movies, and radio contribute the most to the homogenizing of our language, it seems.
For years, I've noticed that the younger generations, especially those who are 20-somethings now and younger, are speaking an increasingly neutral American dialect. It's particularly marked when you listen to the younger generations in the Southern states, compared to their parents and especially their grandparents. The young ones have almost no discernible accent, except for a few telltale pronunciations, but even they are hard to detect. Recently I caught part of one of the many 'reality shows' on TV which a young relative was watching. She mentioned that the show was filmed in the Texas town where she attended high school, which astounded me, since the participants spoke like Californians. Well, if you listened carefully, you could hear some faint hint of Southern intonations, but only if you listened very carefully could you detect it. I commented on this; I said, 'you'd never know they were from Texas.' After reflecting a moment, she said, 'Well, it's probably for the best, because when you travel outside the South, people make fun of your accent. They think Southerners are dumb.'
I know that my grandparents, too, spoke differently than my generation, although it was more a matter of their using old-fashioned expressions than of their pronouncing words differently. For instance, the old folks said things like 'right smart' to mean 'a great deal of', or 'a lot'. As in: 'we had right smart of rain last week.' Or they said things like, 'well, I swan!' to mean 'Well, I'll be...' or 'I swear.' I guess they, being devout Christians, thought that saying 'I swear' was actually swearing an oath, so they said 'swan' instead. I think, however, that this last phrase was used not only in the South, because I came across the phrase in a song called 'Well, I swan!', about a New England yokel.
Still it seems that the South was the most linguistically conservative of the various regions of the country, and preserved their distinct speech patterns longer than other regions. It seems that the vocabulary and the locutions of the South tended to preserve more of the archaic language of our English colonist ancestors. For instance, my older relatives used terms which I find in the King James Bible; phrases such as "light bread", meaning yeast bread rather than biscuits, or cornbread. And they spoke of eating "parched corn", which is also alluded to in the King James Bible; I gather it meant something like the American snack called 'Corn Nuts"; they carried it on journeys for a snack, apparently. The old folks also used words like 'aught' or 'naught' to mean 'zero' or 'nothing'; even my Dad used that term when he was helping me learn multiplication when I was a child.
Given that the South was the area that stayed the same demographically for the longest time, their habit of preserving old ways of speaking is not surprising.
Each region of the country, at one time, had a distinctive character and way of life, and distinctive origins. That uniqueness was manifested in the different ways of speaking and expressing ourselves. If we lose that very natural, organic diversity, which is genuine diversity, we will lose much of the color and variety of American life.
Travel has been one of my great pleasures since I was a child, and my family and I first drove across half the continent. I loved the ever-changing vistas as we traveled across the country and encountered something a little different in each state or each region. The place names reflected the variety, and each little town seemed to have its own character. The laconic, reserved, polite people we encountered in the Northwestern states seemed very different from the garrulous, open, people of the Southern states.. When we moved from Texas to Louisiana for a while, I was delighted to discover another world in the Cajun country of Southern Louisiana. While the people were American and recognizably Southern, they had a unique way of life, complete with their own cuisine and music, and a distinctive way of speaking English. Now I suspect that is diminishing, too, although I have not spent much time there in recent years. While I was there several years ago, I found that the people were as down-to-earth, full of humor and warmth as ever, there was a sense that things are changing there, too, since they are subject to the same homogenizing influences as the rest of America.
I don't know how the rest of the country is faring, as far as preserving their distinct dialect, but I think that the South is getting the worst of it. I am not sure why this is; it may be a combination of the unprecedented demographic shifts in the South, (which until a few decades ago, was mostly Anglo-Celtic by descent and culture) and the attacks specifically on Southern history and culture. As noted by Professor Delaney
Generally, the southern dialects of American English carry a lower prestige, at least among northerners who will assume that a person speaking a southern dialect is less intelligent and less educated than they are. Some educated southerners even feel this way and will "correct" their speech to meet northern standards.
[...]For this reason, schools try to rid children of the local dialects they learned from their family and friends in favor of a more prestigious one.'
I think this is a main factor in the diminishing of the Southern dialect among the young; in the Northwest, for example, which has also seen huge demographic changes, with migration from every region and many foreign countries, the Northwestern dialect (which might be called 'accentless' anyway) has changed little. The South seems to be changing the most. And I admit to being biased; my kin have been in the South for 400 years and my sentimental ties are to the South, without question. But it seems to me that the South is one of the most regionally distinctive areas of the country, with the most vivid and rich culture, and the potential erosion of that would mean a great loss to America.
America is still rich in real diversity: the organic diversity which developed naturally during the course of this country's growth and development. I am all in favor of preserving the time-honored differences between the various regions of America. America has always had a healthy diversity, and at the same time, a unity in our American allegiance. Long live our real diversity; I hope that our distinctive ways of speaking continue and that they don't become part of 'vanishing America.'

Labels: American Culture, English Language

A while back, I read this piece about the decline of copy editors.
...As newspapers lose money and readers, they have been shedding great swaths of expensive expertise. They have been forced to shrink or eliminate the multiply redundant levels of editing that distinguish their kind of journalism from what you find on TV, radio and much of the Web. Copy editors are being bought out or forced out; they are dying and not being replaced.
Webby doesn�t necessarily mean sloppy, of course, and online news operations will shine with all the brilliance that the journalists who create them can bring. But in that world of the perpetual present tense � post it now, fix it later, update constantly � old-time, persnickety editing may be a luxury in which only a few large news operations will indulge. It will be an artisanal product, like monastery honey and wooden yachts.''
In other words, with the disappearance of old-time 'persnickety editing', quality will decline. I'd say it's already happening, not only in the open bias of the news media, but in the increasing numbers of errors, sloppy grammar, and even bad spelling. The copy editors who still exist, and who are not yet 'outsourced' to India, God help us, seem not to have the strict standards of the old days.
That's no surprise; as I often lament on this blog, standards in general are under siege; we live in a rebellious age, an age in which 'individual self-expression' is king, and in which standards are seen as repressive, unfair, biased, and elitist.
Our obsession with being 'non-judgmental' has reached every area of life.
When I was in college, before I declared a major, I considered linguistics. However I found that in the introductory linguistics class I took, the orthodoxy was that 'prescriptive' linguistics was bad, and was passé. The ideal was supposed to be simply 'descriptive' linguistics, which does not judge how people use language, and above all does not lay down or enforce rules of grammar, usage, or spelling, but simply describes. No dialect of English is the standard; all are equal and equally 'proper' or valid. Language is also an 'evolving', living thing which should not be ossified by rules and standards. But is our language evolving or going backwards?
I've noticed certain misspellings and grammar errors that seem to be endemic on the Internet, whereas I had never seen them previously. Now, don't get me wrong; I make mistakes. I don't claim to be without sin here. Sometimes I slip up with the keyboard; I spell better than I type. So I make mistakes, though Firefox's built-in spell checker catches them for me usually. But here are a few examples of those viral Internet solecisms:
'Wrecking havoc' -- or in some cases, 'reeking havoc' instead of 'wreaking havoc.'
'Wreckless' instead of 'reckless.' This one is particularly humorous to me; when we read of someone being charged with 'wreckless driving', does the writer think that the wayward driver is being charged for not having had any accidents? I suspect this solecism may have had its origin with the 1980s rock musician 'Wreckless Eric.'
'Reign in' - this one is seen so very frequently that I suspect it will take over and replace the correct phrase, 'rein in.' I actually saw someone use the correct phrase 'rein in' over on the Mudcat Forum, and for a moment it looked wrong to me, since I'm so used to the incorrect spelling. The metaphor refers to 'reining in' a horse, and has nothing to do with 'reigning' as in ruling.
'One in the same' for 'one and the same.' This one is prevalent too.
'Tounge' for tongue. I think it must be misspelled at least half the time.
'Here, here!' instead of the phrase, 'Hear! Hear!'
'Baffoon' for 'buffoon.' Is a 'baffoon' supposed to be a cross between a baboon and a buffoon?
'Shoe-in' for 'shoo-in.'
'Toe-headed' instead of the correct 'tow-headed.' I suppose it's understandable that many people today are unfamiliar with the term 'tow', meaning flax. 'Tow-headed' people are those who used to be called in archaic language 'flaxen-haired', having very pale blond hair. Since there seem to be fewer and fewer such individuals in our country these days, maybe we will have no use for the term 'tow-headed' or 'flaxen-haired' soon anyway.
'Pour over' as in 'pouring over old documents'. What liquid, I always wonder, is being poured over the documents? The word, as I am sure my readers know, is 'pore'.
'Hypocracy' for 'hypocrisy'. Would 'hypocracy' refer to rule by hypocrites?
'Hoards' for 'hordes' .
'Boarder' for 'border.' As in frequently-seen phrases like this: 'hoards of illegals are crossing the boarder every day.'
Those last two would not be caught by spell checker, since they are words, but just homonyms for the desired word.
And then there are the gramatically tortured phrases like these real-life examples I've seen:
'Being a second-class citizen at home, America was the perfect place for the Scots-Irish.'
Or how about this one: 'Charged with child abuse, four psychiatrists diagnosed him with schizophrenia.'
And this one: 'Scared to death and shaking I took her home.' This sentence was supposed to convey that 'she' was the one scared to death and shaking; not the writer.
What is it about the above few sentences which so many people seem to struggle with? I see these errors more and more all the time, and not just among average people posting on blogs or forums; I see them in newspaper articles, magazine articles, and hear them spoken by educated people. Obviously even the highly educated are not exempt from making such mistakes. The problem is, though, that these mistakes seem just fine to most people when they read or hear them.
Another thing that seems to give most people problems is this kind of thing:
'...as reported to she and her husband.'
''The prize money was split between he and I.'
It seems that everybody is afraid to say 'to her and her husband' or 'between him and me.'
I suspect that people have been conditioned to think that, since sentences like 'Him and me went' are ignorant, then the phrase 'him and me' is not a legitimate phrase anywhere.
I don't advocate becoming a language vigilante; nobody likes to be corrected publicly, or in a tactless way.I don't go around correcting people, especially people I don't know well. I do think we as parents should correct our children, but in a gentle way. Needless to say, teachers and copy editors are paid to teach and to correct, and I suspect they are too concerned with harming somebody's 'self-esteem' so they let errors slip by.
The English language is one of the richest and most nuanced languages in the world. The sheer number of words at our disposal in the English language is quite staggering. And I suppose that in itself is part of the problem; so many words to remember, and to differentiate.
It's a shame that with such an expressive language we neglect it, and fail to develop and use the full potential that is there.
I suppose it's inevitable with the decline of our educational system, and the general dumbing-down of our culture, that our language is becoming less and less precise and careful. Maybe in the overall scheme of things, these matters are trivial, but I do believe that language shapes thought as well as thought shaping language. Both work together. The more precise and specific we can be with our language, the better and the more clearly we communicate.

Labels: Declining Standards, Dumbing Down, Education, English Language, Media