The Founding Fathers clearly established "American English" as the official language of the United States as opposed to British English. Thus, the different spellings for many words, such as the replacement of 's' with 'z'.
I guess if some leftwing libertarians don't like what the Founder's did, then they might lose their claim to their supposed libertarianism.
The plural of "Founder" is "Founders," not "Founder's." CLS vindicated. (sigh)
I gather from Dondero's comment that since the Founding Fathers also wrote slavery in the Constitution, that should be acceptable to libertarians as well.
Today's LP is a pack of kooks, rather than principled libertarians.
Obviously pseudo-libertarian paleoconservative Repiglican Rittberg is ignorant of the fact that the "founding fathers" established "American English" as the official language for the business of the federal government to be conducted in--not the official language of the United States in general. If it were already the latter, then the anti-Mexican social nationalists, which is essentially what most of the "English-only" movement consists of, would not be pushing to make English the official sacred cow language of the United States, which is just another racist slap in the face to the people who speak the languages that are indigenous to the North American Indian continent.
Eric is one of those Right-wing trolls that hangs around lots of libertarian sights pushing his pro-war agenda and the rest of his rot. He is notorious for his constant campaign of harassing libertarian sites with his right-wing bullshit. He is also dishonest about many claims he makes -- though he could excuse his false claims on the basis of dumbness and most people would find that believable.
He merely asserts that the Founders (or Founder’s in his vocabulary) established American English as the official language. There is no official language and they did no such thing. He offers no proof. I have lived in four different English speaking countries and in all four the languages have a huge amount of commonality and a lot of differences. This, also explains my tendency to periodically use the British English spelling by mistake. For years that is what I wrote in and sometimes I slip back into it.
Mr. Rittberg Dondero is lying. There was nothing the Founders did that established an official language. They used English but they didn’t establish it in any official form. There is nothing in the Constitution setting out an official language. It was merely the common language and still is.
As for the differences in American versus British English they evolved over centuries much as the differences between Australian English and British English or the differences between Dutch and Afrikaans. The differences in the US did get a big boost but not from the Founders. In fact it is pretty well conceded that the main impetus for the spelling differences, which Rittberg points to, came with Webster’s dictionary in 1828 -- well after 1776.
Webster was a Federalist (big government advocates of the day) who wanted to differentiate American English from the British form. He intended to do that. He wrote that into his various books, his Elementary Spelling Book, his Grammatical Institute of the English Language and his Dictionary. So Webster was carrying out a campaign to promote differentiation between the two and he changed many of the spellings.
Also what is forgotten is that in some pronunciations American English is the original pronunciation and British English evolved away from that. The clearest example of that is the “a” in dance.
These differences, however, for the most part, with the exception of Webster’s concerted push, evolved slowly. They were never instituted officially by any government agency. Rittberg is once again inventing claims to bolster his own conservative prejudices.
In other words he invented out of whole cloth his claim about the Founders officially establishing the difference between British and American English. Get used to it -- it's a favorite tactic or should I say "favourite tactic".
It should also be noted that even with Webster’s big push that some differences evolved prior to that, of course. I thought that would be clear but thought I should say so. But no official language was instituted.
Distance is a prime reason languages evolve away from one another and they naturally differe with time. I have memorized the beginning of the Canterbury Tales in Old English and it doesn’t sounde English at all: “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote. The droghte of March hath perced to the roote, and bathed every veyne in swich licour, of which vertue engendred is the flour...”
Second, Americans continued to use words which the Brith had dropped. We can refer to a dresser as a bureau, we use the word Fall for Autumn. The British had used such words and dropped them. Other Americanisms are words that evolved from Indian words, German words, Spanish words.
Contrary to Rittberg’s false claim the first attempt to make English official was in 1923 by the State of Illinois which said that the official language there was English but it was to be known as the American language NOT the English language -- once again we see how effective legislation is. The bill was introduced that year in the US House of Representatives as well but failed. It was never made an official language in the US however it is an official language of the United Nations -- one of six.
English is the defacto language not the official language and there is a difference. The purpose of the official language movement is merely to slap non-english speakers in the face. As the descendent of immigrants, many of whom couldn’t speak English, I find that insulting. But then it is meant to be insulting -- that is the purpose of it.
"pseudo-libertarian paleoconservative Repiglican Rittberg"
Dondero is a neocon, not a paleoconservative. Paleo-conservatives are anti-imperialism.
I agree that the govt. should not establish an official language. But wouldn't you agree that official govt. business should only be done in English? I don't think we should have voting ballots in Spanish, even though I guess there are things far more offensive than that, including things Donderooo advocates.
Chris: I would have ballots in English and I would conduct state business in English. I also think government schools should try English -- the students there seem to speak "ugh", a dialect mainly of grunts and whines.
Where I think translations ought to be provided is in the justice system. A person should not be denied justice due to their inability to speak English. I also have lived in non-English countries where I didn't speak the language by the way.
By the way English is not the "official" language of England either. Great Britain, of course also has Welsh, Gaelic and Scotland has three different forms of Gaelic in addition to English. In "English" Canada there is the massive French-speaking province of Quebec. While English dominates the commercial sector in South Africa the country has an official language -- actually it simply made all the languages official and there are 20 of them. New Zealand has English and Maori as official languages.
In fact I don't know of any country where English is the sole official language. Those that have official languages tend to recognize historic languages which, for the US, would mean including Spanish as an official language. Australia has no official language. India has English as an official language but so is HIndi.
Why do English speaking nations tend to avoid having an official language? I think it is the influence of classical liberalism that limited the role of the state. The state has no bnusiness imposing language on people and thus it was just never seen to be a state function to officially recognize a language. That is why this new libertarianism is such an odd bird -- it is at war with the traditional libertarian or classical liberal viewpoint of life.
I find it hilarious how Eric, with his "Founder's", perfectly illustrates the point of this publication!
Which is, in case somebody has forgotten: those who advocate "English only" are not very strong in English grammar...
Excellent post. Keep up doing good job!
My recollection is that the Declaration of Independence was promulgated by the Continental Congress in English ... and French, Spanish and German.
Sure Thomas but that was because they were a bunch of pinko commies promoting revolution and talking about things like rights and freedom. : )
In this instance, I agree with Mr. Dondero, despite one minor punctuation error. While making English the official language of the United States is not now a plank of the Libertarian Party platform, it is an excellent idea and in no way inconsistent with libertarian principles.
Making English the official language of the United States would reduce government expenses. This is a libertarian position I understand that in some areas of California, election ballots must be printed in at least a dozen languages. The confusion created by this Babel is just the sort of problem that promoters of big government use to increase their power.
It is ant-racist, since it would tend to reduce segregation.
Actually, it would benefit immigrants by encouraging them to learn English and thus get better jobs and assimilate more quickly, which would also most likely reduce government expenses.
Finally, the movement to make English the official language would only apply to government activities. In no way would it hinder people from speaking, writing in or learning other languages.
Canada has had many problems since French became an official language.
To say that government should not be involved in language is puzzling to say the least. If there is anything which bureaucrats do well it is verbosity. Better to have them verbose,or even conduct necessary written communications, in one language rather than many.
Biden is on the wrong on this issue, as most others.
Mr Macko: It is inconsistent as government has no right to establish an official language, an official belief, an official religion, etc. It is not a function of government to do that. As for reducing govt. expenses via multilingual ballots, etc., that only takes repealing the laws the mandated such things. The problem can be solved by repealing old laws as opposed to passing new laws.
The best way to increase language skills of immigrants is to open the job markets yet those markets are being restricted more and more. Changing a ballot will have little effect in that. Your claim it helps them learn English is grossly exaggerated. In Quebec French has always been the language so don’t assume that the Canadian govt. made it so by legislation. And the problem is that Quebec has an “official” language and the problems you talk about are an attempt to ban “foreign” words in the name of businesses, etc. The problem you allude to is the result of them passing a law like the one you want.
Biden is wrong on most things not on this one. The LP is unlibertarian and moving in a xenophobic direction. It is bad enough that you have Barr now leading the party. Don’t make it worse. This is why I quit the LP after 30 years of support.
David Macko wrote:
"Actually, it would benefit immigrants by encouraging them to learn English and thus get better jobs and assimilate more quickly, which would also most likely reduce government expenses".
ASSIMILATE to what? White southern culture? African-American culture? American Indian culture? You imply that the United States is a monocultural nation.
Immigrants whose first language is not English and who desire jobs that require proficiency in English will become proficient in English whether there other languages are prohibted on government-issued printed matter or not.
Spanish has been a common language throughout the southwestern U.S. for over 400 years and it ain't gonna go away in spite of Anglophile nativist attempts to legislate it away from the public sector. It's the official language of the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and there's no reason why it shouldn't be in states where it is spoken by millions of people.
By the way, I do think that many of the South-western states ought to conduct their business in Spanish as well as English. After all, the territory was taken from Mexico with large numbers of Spanish speaking people living there. And the historic ties to Mexico are very, very strong indeed. But I find the whole language issue bogus. The children of immigrants grow up bilingual and most their children only speak English. It is only a temporary problem for the first generation of immigrants and all studies back that up -- and this was true with my Swedish, German, French and Polish ancestors. And apparently some of my French ancestors were immigrants to France as well. I love to speak another language than English but I don't.
I don't think it is necessary to pass a law making English the official language. But I think it is wrong to have the government translate things such as ballots for those who cannot speak English. (Since only citizens are allowed to vote, why should this be necessary?) The translation is done at taxpayer expense. That sure ain't libertarian or Libertarian. If those who are deficient in English need a translation, let them pay for it. In the private world people should be free to use whatever language or languages they wish. If an employer wants a particular language used, that is his right. I understand that many people are sick of people coming here and expecting those here to change to accommodate them. Whatever happened to, "When in Rome do as the Romans do?"
"...I understand that many people are sick of people coming here and expecting those here to change to accommodate them. Whatever happened to, "When in Rome do as the Romans do?"..."
Isn't that the same question Sitting Bull and Geronimo posed?
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
When in America, do as the Indigenous Americans do. 
Cogitator: It doesn’t make sense for you to talk about the “private world” and then speak about elections. Elections are a method by which government gives you some awful choices and then asks you to pick one. This, they say, makes them legitimate and gives them the right to rule others.
You seem to think that citizens speak English. My great grandmother couldn’t speak English and was a citizen. She was allowed to vote because she was a citizen. In Chicago, where she lived the local Democratic machine would then supply written instructions, in the various languages, to immigrants on HOW they were supposed to vote -- that is who they were supposed to vote for. Of course that is one option but a rather corrupt one I would think.
this entire topic is absurd; it is to the benefit of anyone trying to secure work (or self-respect?) in this American culture, to at least attempt to learn the prevailing language as it is constructed. It would also behoove those who were born and raised in this land to set an example by doing so!!
it's pretty clear that not even many of those who consider themselves erudite and educated, even on this blog, have ever bothered to learn their OWN language, before declaring that others should abandon theirs and adopt its vagaries and intricacies!
Commenting by HaloScan
