with sufficient clarity, the answers may well become self-evident. In his plea for a union of the thirteen colonies, John Jay presented a particularly good and succinct outline of the components commonly believed to make for nationhood. His full statement lists these as: * A large expanse of connected, contiguous territory * Descent from common ancestors * A common language * A common religion * Attachment to the same principles of government * Similarity of manners and customs *A long and common history of war, suffering and a happy outcome *Readiness to forget past intergroup conflicts This last component is not from John Jay's writings, but it is a very original contribution by Ernest Renan, a nineteenth century French theologian and philosopher known for his work on national cohesion and nationhood. Renan believed that a willingness to forget past hurts inflicted by one group upon another--"forgetfulness"--is essential to the creation of strong bonds between various groups in the country. We have greatly changed since Jay made the case for a united country on the basis of homogeneity. We are no longer a contiguous nation, but one spread out far into the Pacific Isles and beyond the Canadian North. We no longer share common ancestors, and our common spiritual ancestors, the heroes of American history, have been knocked off their pedestals. We speak a multitude of languages, and insist on voting in them and on educating our children in them. Religion is no longer a common tie. We have remained steadfast in our belief in democratic government, but the emphasis has shifted entirely to assertions of individual rights, and the individual's obligations to the collective seem all but forgotten. Manners, customs and life-styles have never been so varied. The criterion of a common history of war and suffering followed by a happy outcome, so meaningful to the generation that fought the Revolutionary War, means little to Americans who mostly remember only unpopular wars with confused outcomes. Finally, far from forgetting past wrongs, we resurrect every hurt, every past injury to every group in American society, and each group makes sure that these are magnified and used to political advantage rather than forgotten. At the dawn of our Independence, we had all the standard ingredients that history and experience tell us make for national unity. Yet even as we changed, even as we became more and more diverse, we managed to maintain a society of exceptional stability and civil concord. It has been the hallmark of our national character that as we became less alike to one another, we also became more tolerant of differences; in time, we came to not only tolerate them, but to understand them, and eventually to appreciate them. Other nations all over the world were being undone by conflicts between different groups within their borders; but we did well with diversity, and came to value it for its own sake, allowing it to enrich our lives, yet without letting it overwhelm us. The miracle of America has been that we have managed together so well with so few of the commonalities believed essential for nationhood. But now, when we review that list, we note that only two still apply to us. More correctly, perhaps, only one and "a half" still apply. A common language still pulls most of us together, and we still share a commitment to democratic governance. However, we have become selective in this latter commitment-passionate about our personal rights (and now, about group rights), but dispassionate about broader social responsibilities. The fact that we are left with so few civic ties to one another is deeply felt by virtually all Americans. Our citizens are resolute in their support for English, which is no longer a bond but the bond between all of us.They understand instinctively that, as a people, we have become more vulnerable to internal divisions and civil strife. They understand that a common language is necessary to work out our disagreements peaceably, and is now more important to us than ever. They sense that if we let rival languages displace the primacy of English, we shall have lost all hope of going on as a people with a common resolve and common destiny. And because they strongly connect our language with our survival as a united people, they join U.S.ENGLISH in astounding numbers. We can not dodge the question: are there not at least some elements of cohesion that a nation--any nation--must maintain? And if our answer is yes, how close are we to the absolute minimum? Can the United States survive the erosion of English? And even if the probability of this coming to pass seems remote, can we afford to take the risk of such a loss? As we approach the bicentennial of the Constitution, it behooves us to recall that the Constitution is first and foremost a document about building an enduring nation. That goal is clearly stated at the start--"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...". In our eagerness to quote one individual right or another and to derive still further individual rights from those quoted, we have lost sight of the fact that the primary purpose of the Constitution is "a more perfect union". All else comes after, and is subordinate to that lofty purpose. The process of amending our Constitution requires public debate toward an eventual consensus on the issue under consideration. The debate is already ongoing full-force, and is reaching a high plane in these august chambers. But the consensus is already built. We are pleased that the English Language Amendment is supported not only by a broad spectrum of well-established Americans, but by many newer immigrant groups as well. The American people care deeply about their common language, and they want it protected. In the fading years of this century, nothing would be more injurious to the cause of national unity than our failure to act on this wish. And nothing would assure the perpetuation of our language bond as benignly, as unobtusively, yet so effectively, as a constitutional declaration of the principle that English is our language. To inject a practical note into your deliberations, let me also point out that before the end of the century, Congress will have to make some critical decisions about the status of Puerto Rico. It would be wise to settle firmly on the language of the nation before Puerto Rican statehood is up for consideration. Senators, no Congress ever had such a splendid opportunity, to do so much for the future of our country, at so little political cost. On behalf of the forty thousand members of U.S.ENGLISH, and the two hundred thousand other Americans who have communicated their concerns to us, I thank you for your attention. I end this testimony on a personal note. We have just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the allied landing in Normandy. These were the brave men who launched the offensive that freed Europe from Hitler's tyranny, and liberated me and my family from the relentless persecutions of the Nazi Holocaust. A few years later, America offered me refuge and a new home. I was sixteen when I came, speaking not a word of English, and having missed many crucial years of schooling during the war. It may seem trite to say so, but this country has offered me opportunities I could not even have dreamed of in the upheavals of my childhood, not the least of which is the great honor of appearing before you today. I would like to believe that, in some small measure, I have repaid my debt to my adopted country today. The Association of Indians in America, Inc. A Non-Profit Organization of Asian Indians President Surendra K. Saxena Vice Presidents Gopal Alankar Sudhir Kumar R. Narayanaswami Parliamentarian Mr. Joseph E. Fallon Dear Mr. Fallon, October 25, 1983 The Association of Indians in America supports the English language as the language of this land, which we have adopted as our country. I am encouraging our members to write in support of both Resolutions you recommended. If I can be of any help, please feel free to call me. I apologize for the delay in response. Thanks, Surendra K. Saxena President |