Opinion

Details

Written by: Jim Lyle

Published: 06 February 2008

Currently in the United States, there is much hype and bombast about, "our Language." It is a rally point for Patriots, many of whom have never made any other investment. The rural areas of California have many, many, citizens whose concept of patriotism is in how many places they can find to fly a flag. The favorite seems to be flags flown from a 4x4 anchored by rope or cable in the rear bed of the ubiquitous pickup. It is, in fact, not a simple quandary, but there are important considerations that are seldom discussed.

If, as a vehicle of discussion, we assume any abstract country at any random time, the humans will, have a language. Volumes have been written on the relative sophistication and beauty and complexity and power of languages. Some will endlessly argue the merits and beauty of the different tongues. I personally feel that some languages are better at expressing some subjects better than 1) they are at expressing other subjects in that same language, and/or are 2) better or worse at expressing some subjects than are other languages. It is my understanding, from readings in Semantics, that most experts fall back to those same general opinions; i.e., some are better at some things and some are better at others.

So, if we were to play pin-the-tale-on-the-donkey at any place on an Earth map, the language story of every culture will be a history of change. If the language (in its present form) is different now than it once was, then something changed it. One possibility is gradual change over time. In my high school in Oklahoma, our English teacher from back east could scarcely understand our speech, yet I am reasonably sure that "time" in provincial isolation was the primary agent of our change. That included our pronunciation of specific words and the general tang we gave to it. The point is, that the Irish, and German, and English, and the broad selections of pioneers who settled the west soon spoke a very different language than what might have been their lot had they stayed at home. After a rather short time, even the English spoken by expatriate Englishmen had little to do with England's standards.

I think reflection will demand that we accept that languages change even when they stay in "A" place with "A" relatively stable population of native speakers. All the more pertains if the population is not static. Exodus, influx, amelioration, and decay push the instability. One or more instability factors have always been present on this continent. Even in the major Indian tongues the records seem to indicate cross tribal pollination in normal times and drastic change in warfare and during migration.

Given that change did, has, and will occur, it seems to me that we must investigate the things that allow one language to change and/or absorb another. That, by the way, is the normal circumstance; trying to outlaw a language usually succeeds in creating parallel languages. At least it is so until schools, commerce, and time finally elects one prevailing variant. But, by that time, the one elected has almost always absorbed a lot of the other.

And the main instruments of change? There are, I think, three:

One very obvious force for change, is FORCE! When people who speak different languages wage war, the victor usually insists on the use of their language, but the extent may vary. Typically the government itself will use the victors tongue. Business, at least major business and business locations, will tend to function as the victors dictate. Official schools will help the transitions by using and promoting the new tongue. But, this "contamination" is hated and resisted by the populace, and, with enough time, the populace will usually end up using mixture of the old and the new and imposed. Example: the English over the Irish. But, isn't it interesting how an Irishman, George Bernard Shaw, out did the English with their own tongue)?

The second is commerce. A major source of change, but much simpler than war. Even merchants, who are of the prevailing major class, will kowtow to the subject language when money dictates. If one grocery store tends to hire employees who can speak the "non-official" language, that portion of the populace will gravitate to that store.

The third instrument of change is birth rate. If minorities outbreed the majority long enough, they become a balance of power even in the use and power of the first two instruments of change. If there are more of the "new language" users in a time of war, they will be solicited or drafted. If the need is dire and present, the military will find ways to speak to them. If they have the buying power, commerce will court them. If there are enough of them, and the majority does not accommodate them, the majority ends up at war with them. Regarding which, ghetto violence is both extended and fueled by this very problem. The language is an audible tag of position. It is not, admittedly, language alone, but if you allow an exploding birth rate in a disenfranchised atmosphere, the results will be, and are, evolved from and do provoke violence. Denying heritage and language within these parameters is a volatile fuse for a very heavy explosive.

All this is preamble to the central question about whether, or not, "they" must learn "our" language. We need, I think, to be careful how we answer. We must be sure that we know and understand who and what "they" are. It is also conducive to all parties if they also know and understand who and what we are.

We also should not ever assume that "our" language is, in fact, ours. It coexists with us, we use it, we learn it, and we may love it, but it belongs to history. It is not "ours." It has, will, and now is changing! The Spanish speakers have already changed it greatly (a great portion of the names and titles of towns, geography, and history in California are identified and titled in Spanish).

And, by the way, the quickest way in the world to kill a given language is any to keep it from growing, changing, discarding old parts, and absorbing the new. French was, at one time, where English is now; it was the common denominator language of the world. But the French, with conceit and condescension, decided their language had to remain pure … so time and the world ignored the French. I’m sure it is concurrent, but as the use of the French language, France concurrently ceased to be the

number one military power in the world. Whether we remain the preeminent military power in the world is yet to be seen, but if we can't collectively admit, welcome, and embrace the growth and change of English, our language, we WILL wind up like France, and that might also be a part of our loss in international politics.

The arguments, answers, anger and instincts of the "good-ole pickup and flag patriots" all display their tendency to proscribe and dictate. It does not work. It will not work. It will, of certainty, fail from within. The argument of being here first and having our own language is, as a justification, specious. If that were not so, we Americans should all be speaking some variant of American Indian. They were here and they had their own language. If military power at the time when the new languages entered had be the valid and driving justification, we would again be speaking Indian. Even without guns, all the native population needed to expel, or kill, or enslave the new comers was the will to do so. If, and to the extend possible, the prior waves of migration of the “native” Americans probably had similar situations as they moved on other native populations.

If we want to perpetuate "our" language, there is only one sure way; we must seduce the new speakers. But, we must absolutely allow for change, growth, expansion, and transition. We must lead with a carrot, not with a stick. Unfortunately, our schools do a very poor job at this. If we do not effectively continue the four hundred year seduction that created (and fuels) what America is … then we will be left trying to force continuity. And that, I think, would not succeed! And even if it did, the result would no longer be the American Dream; it would cease to exist. Stasis can not be forced.

Jim Lyle is a former Lake County Poet Laureate. He now lives in Yountville.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

Details

Written by: Ashley Indrieri

Published: 03 February 2008

It’s hard for me to understand how certain special interest groups get to plan the vision for the Blue Ridge Berryessa region. The big fear of development can be viewed as a threat, but who get to make the decisions on whether or not a particular region gets to grow? Those that we elect to represent our local counties and cities should remain in control of local land use decisions.

While I may not be a resident of Lake County, I am a resident of Colusa County and the National Conservation Area (NCA) designation would not only affect Lake County, but Colusa, Solano, Napa and Yolo counties as well.

But herein lies the problem: Of the 800,000 acres in the Blue Ridge Berryessa region, over 400,000 is privately owned. Arbitrary layers of conservation on privately owned land can affect property values, and many of those landowners have no idea that there is a proposed conservation area that they may be forced to deal with. Environmental groups are not elected by the people and their vision for the region may differ from others who live there. But regardless of their vision, they have no authority to plan for the future of privately owned land.

Private landowners should be able to opt-in to such a designation. While proponents of an NCA designation proclaim that it will protect the region from growth, it creates a mechanism by which local government is bypassed, thus giving the federal government land use authority.

Private property rights are included in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution because our forefathers understood the basic principles of private property and their role in creating the American dream in a capitalistic society.

Over the years the environmental movement has stripped many landowners of these rights through government intrusion and the Endangered Species Act. The acquisition of private property for “public good” under the guise of protecting the environment is only a scare tactic. Landowners, farmers and ranchers have been good stewards of their land for many decades and the government and environmental groups have no right to impose regulations on private landowners that have the potential to put them out of business.

It is critical that the public understands that private property rights need to be protected and that programs that undermined those rights need to be exposed. In our nation and right in our backyard, a deceptive land grab is being pursued to further the environmental agenda, and agricultural and our rural economies are the innocent victims that are caught in the crossfire.

So why the use of scare tactics? What is the big unknown fear that we need to be protected from? Development? The fear that landowners will sell out to the highest bidder is a real threat, but it is also someone’s right to sell if farming or ranching is no longer economically viable for them. Investing in programs that help keep farming and ranching viable is the way to prevent development not additional environmental and government regulations and fees.

Also, it’s not surprising that environmental groups are supporting such a concept. The NCA designation will create an influx of money to the region, and that means that local environmental groups will be able receive grants to “preserve” the region and further their agenda.

The goal of an NCA designation is land acquisition and federal land use authority. This region has been protected by private landowners for over 100 years, and who is to say that the federal government can do a better job managing the region?

It seems disingenuous for the proponents of such a designation, who claim to want to preserve the region for future generations, to want to put those future generations deeper and deeper into debt. And while there may be a growing number of organizations that want to support this designation, there are a growing number of landowner, elected officials, nonprofit organizations, ranchers and farmers who are opposed to such an egregious violation of private property rights.

Public awareness and knowledge of the issue is the only way to protect our communities. We are a nation that was built on the “land of free and home of the brave” and private property rights are one of the founding principles that make our county so great.

Ashley Indrieri is the executive director of Family Water Alliance, a nonprofit grassroots organization that advocates for private property rights, water rights and the sustainability of agriculture for rural north state communities.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

Details

Written by: Congressman Mike Thompson

Published: 29 January 2008

On Monday night, the president offered few real solutions to the problems that have developed since he came into office. In fact, the president shared a much rosier view of the conditions facing American families than reality dictates. While our country remains the greatest on earth, Americans are struggling with the rising costs of energy, gas, health care, education and housing. And the war in Iraq continues to drain our treasury and military, while our reputation among our allies steadily deteriorates. Over the past seven years, the president squandered the financial resources and international goodwill our nation had when he came into office. Because of this, American families are facing tough times, and they are ready for a change.

Unfortunately, the president’s State of the Union address offered little direction or inspiration for America’s future. His claim that No Child Left Behind is a success drew laughs from Republicans and Democrats alike. And one of the few ideas he had – privatizing public education – is a non-starters on both sides of the aisle.

Like many of my fellow Americans, I am looking for a president who offers bold solutions to problems like climate climate change, our dependency on foreign oil and the millions of Americans without health care. We especially need a president who will bring our troops home as quickly and safely as possible and will implement a diplomatic strategy for quelling and containing violence in Iraq. But most important, we need a president who values bipartisanship and problem-solving over political rhetoric and pandering.

Our nation faces many challenges, but with the right leadership, I am confident that the state of our union can once again be strong. Over the past year, Congress has begun to take our county in a new direction. We’ve made strides toward energy independence, better care for our veterans, lowering the cost of college and improved national security. However, Congress acknowledges we have much more to do. I look forward to working with a president who shares this commitment.

Congressman Mike Thompson represents the First Congressional District, which includes Lake County. Visit his Web site at http://mikethompson.house.gov/.

{mos_sb_discuss:5}