Reading Assignment

~; The Imposition of World War I ·1Era English-Only Policies and '~ the Fate of German in North ~ Amer i ca

':~ Terrence G. Wiley ": Caiiiornia State University, Long Beach

OVERVIEW

For over three centuries German immigrants have been arriving in North America . In the United States, those of German ancestry now com p r ise a principal component of the nat ional population. They have also been an important factor in growth in the Canadian population. Yet today, with the exception of a few tourist-oriented German enclaves in urban areas, and save for the persistence of a small number of deutschephones in some rural areas , the German language and culture have left only a faint mark o n the dominant cu ltur e . Given the extent of German migration to North America, the question can be raised as to why the influence of the German la nguage and German culture is not more apparent.

A popular answer is that Germans easily assimilated because they saw the value of learning English and" American " ways . A detached analysis of data related to language shift and language loss across generations supports the view that linguistic assimilation in to English has been routine.

211

GERMAN AS AN IMMIGRANT-MINORITY LANGUAGE: 18TH CENTURY TO WORLD WAR I

" ' Ia n u a es in N orth Am erica can b e c a tego- From a hist orical p ersp ech v e, , Ig I g . ' ra n t an d creoles re s u lting

, d ' ld colo ma a ter Imnl1g t rized as 111 ig en ou s. 0 2 ' Ian ua es fa1\ int o th e first cat eg ory. Eng- fro m la ngu a ge co n ta ct . Indwn g, g Swedish a nd Dutch , for exa m ple, lish . Sp anish, Fren ch , G er ma n'hRussla n, th e l ang~ages spoken b y coloni sts ar e call ed "co lo nial" becau se t ey w ere ( .

I . I eriod is prob ab ly bes t cate go rized With 2 Alrica n American lan gu age duri n g the CO ivolunta ry imm igr a nl s (se e Ogb u & Ma tute-

creoles . Ens la ved African Am encans W~~~ l~or furt her d is cu ssion o f th is term ). U nhk,e l3ianchi 1986, a nd Gibso n & Ogbu, 1 , bi led to po licies 01 fo rced langu a ge era d i-

, . f . A ricans were s u [ec rr • h t t Eu ropea n col o nist s. A ri ca n m e l' 1 "co m p u lsory ig nor an ce Wit res pec 0 ca tio n o f Ihe nati ve ton g ues as we ll as a po ICy 0 En glish litera cy (see Weinbe rg, 1995)

7""" . . e rl lea rn ed Englis h a n d glad ly sur- former la ngu age m1l1 0nt y group~ eag han e for assim ilat ion ; a nd (b) t h a t rendered th eir nat i: e ,la n gu a ges ll,~ , ex~, ! nd Am eri cani zation led to na- their will in g s u b miSSion to Ang I ica Ion

~tiona l u n i t y a nd c U l hl r~l ha~~o;:-concentra ti ng o n th e h ist or ical d eve lop- '" . These m yt hs are co n Ion ~ i nor it langu age in th e Unite d St ates

. ' 'mmlgra n t rrunor i y Dlent of Ger m a n as a n I . t b th im media te a nd lo ng term--of

<"and then b y a na lyzi ng th,e ,lm PfaWc- ldoW 1' 1in both th e U n ite d Sta tes and . I u age pohCles 0 or a , . d

•. antl-Germ an a ng ~ " f I im os itio n o f Engli sh -only p ohCles an . Cana da. Lega l ramlhc~tl.ons 0 t re \ Pd ' nd th e im p lica tio ns of th e Ger- ' ~ other rest r ictioni st p O,h Cl es are exhP o;e , a e min orit y gro u ps a re br iefly \: man Amer ica n ex pe ne nce for o t er an gu ag

,~: CO~~d~;~iyme r ~198~) ha~ nt:;t~:a;:~~~:~:~;~~e~~~:~~~s~:~~~a~ ~: are typ icall y s tu d ied sll1

l gu ~::ong th e im por tan t eve nts o f th e era were :

:>depa rture from n orma cy, t . " . n rnon l called " hyp hens" ) of the 1CJ 1G

The il nt ih yp hen isill (Im nllgril nts w erc CO! . Ye HOSc cul io ns of 19 17-18, t he

P resi d enti il \ c am p ,1ign, th e sc thtlon and c sp lton."t

g 1'la ws o f 19 21 an d 19 24, a nd

"0 th . 111gratl on res n c IOf I Reel Scare of 1<ll 9~;L , c fill! .' f he ca rl and mid -1920s .. , t the gro w L1 the "A merica n Plan o f a nl lll~nll ~~~S~:~rI~ 1 o f Ih: Ku Klu x Klan (p . 97 ) of the Am eriCill1 Legio n, an

" -{ ver ab no r ma l the se events m ay se em wh en McCl ym er ad d ed : I owe " -t of th e g e n er al p o liticiza tion of culture

, ' I ti " th e y were p al seen 111 ISO a 10n tl d to th e rest o f tw ent ieth ce n tury

- ' d f 1914-25 bequ ea , e , whi ch th e pe no 0 . 'II id nt in po p u lar attitudes a nd i de olo-

, "( 97) Its ma rk IS s ti ev i e . ' I E Ame nca p . , ultu ral d ivers ity as the rag e of " offIcIa ng- gies to ward lan gu age a n d c I a nti-im mi ra n t init iati v es of th e lish" in itia tives o f th e lat e 1 9~Os a nd"t '~ c an o hob~a " (Craw for d , 1992a ) 19905, a nd recent m ani festatIOn s of HI SP P

bear wi tn ess ,

•,

" t. WORLD WAR I ERA ENGLISH-O NLY PUULlt.:>

IM acias' (1992) w o rk o n indige nous lan g ua ge po licies has also bee n cont ribu tory , as it un d ers cor es so m e of th e lim itati o ns of the d ominant im m igra n t pa radig m w h ich freq ue n tly ass u mes that lin gu isti c assi milation is a n ine vi tab le rite o f p assage (see Kloss , 1971, a nd Wiley & Lu kes, 1996, for furt her di scuss io n o f t he im mi gr an t p aradi gm) . Fin ally, Leibo w itz (] 969; s ee also McKa y & Weinst ei n-Shr, 1993) ca lled att enti o n to th e persis ten ce o f Eng lis h la ngua ge and literacy p olicies as "ga tekeepe rs " to soc ial access a nd econ o mic p a rticip a tion .

212

A ltho u g h a co nsi de ra b le a mo u n t o f em pi rica l data supports th is view, I , carefu l rev ie w o f the hist orical e xpe rien ce o f Ge r man Am ericans-not to', m en tio n that of m an y oth er gro ups- in d ica tes th at th e re is mu ch more to' th eir s to ry. Ju st as th er e are pu sh-an d -pull fact ors th at h av e influ enced, immi g rati on , so too a re th er e s imila r factor s that ha ve a ffect ed th e linguistic' a nd cu ltu ral ass im ilati on o f thos e of Ge r ma n or ig in How ev er, to frame iss ues on ly in te rm s of Eng lis h ling uis tic assi m ilat io n is to ove r look an , important aspect o f langu ag e minority exper ie nce , na m ely th e deve lop- j m erit and mainten an ce of bilingualism a nd biculturali sm. ",

As I h a ve a rg ued elsew he re (Wiley, 1996a , 1996b; Wiley & Lu kes , 1996),::, th e id eol ogical d ominance o f Eng lis h m on olingualism influ en ces th e way } in wh ich m a ny sch olars from th e U ni ted Sta tes a nd o ther Eng lish dominant , co u n tr ies fram e th eir researc h q ues tio ns ab out lan gua g e mi norit ies. When'~' resea rch ers assum e th at an int erg enerational sh ift to En gli sh is inevi table, '\ th ey o fte n na rro w th e s co pe o f th eir resea rch q u es tio ns to a focus on the ; " a cqui siti on of Eng lish a n d th er eb y fail to co ns ider b ilin gual ism a n d bicul- '" turali srn as legitimate a ltern a ti ves to m on ol in g ualism a n d mon ocultural- -~\ ' ism , Thu s , s tro ng e mpir ica l arg u me n ts h av e b e en mad e fo r the :t un idi recti onal s h ift from o ther la ngu a ges toward Eng lish (e.g ., Veltman, . ; 1983). G iv en the p reocc upa tio n w ith the rate of assim ilati on to English , ~ th e re ha s nei the r bee n mu ch con cern for d ocum ent ing th e d e vel opm ent of - s ociet al bil in g uali sm nor for an al yzing the forc es th at work ag a ins t it.

In expl orin g th e fat e o f Ge rma n in th e Un ite d Sta tes, thi s an aly sis utilizes a hist or ical -st ru ctu ral a pproac h (Tollefso n, 1991; Wiley, 1996a). This ap- p roa ch assum es that the formati on o f lan gu age po licies a nd lan gua ge attitu d es a re b est stud ied w ith in b roa d hist orical s oc iopo litica l an d s ocio- eco no m ic con te xts . In de ve lo pi ng this d iscussio n, th e pio neer ing wor k of Leibowitz 0 969, 1971, 1974) ha s al so be en influe n tial in un d er s coring the need for a n an al ys is of lan gua ge p ol icy across mult iple domai ns inclu d ing education, reli gion , an d the p opular me dia .'

Langua ge p olicies ha v e ra rely been implem ented s tr ictly as en ds in th em selv es; rathe r, th e y ha ve been used as mean s to ac hieve othe r pur- p oses , Th ey ar e often instrum ents o f soc ia l co n tro l in strugg les be twee n gro u ps . As Leibowit z (1974) note d , p olici es imposed durin g pe r iod s of m a jor po litica l ex tre m ism ha ve been us ed to se ttle o ld s cores a nd ha ve had cons equen ces well be y ond the er a of th eir im po si tio n, In de velop in g the se conclusion s, thi s cha p ter cha lle nges p opular m yth s (Wiley, 1986) th at (a)

r ··

,',

215~" WORLD WAR I ERA ENGLISH-ONLY POLICIES

inclin at ion" of Germa ns to fight In dians (C ra w fo rd , 1992b, P: 9), I n lat er tars Franklin dropp ed his strid en cy towa rd th e use of Ge r ma n _ Quit e

iexpee ted ly, despite h is p rotestati ons , G e r m a n co n ti n u e d to b e u s ed i n are as here G er m a n immi g rants w er e co nce n tr a te d .

The Early 19th Century (1800 to 1835)

Th e ea rly 19th century was marked by lan guage toleran ce and by o fficia l recog ni tio n o f lan guage choice (Macias, 1992) . Foll ow in g the end o f the N ap ol eon ic wa rs, of which the War o f ]812 was o n ly a part, G erman imm igration to th e United St at es increa s ed , Howeve r, unlike the G erman reli gi ous refu g e es o f the 18th ce n tu ry, th os e of the n ew er generat ion were m o re likel y to b e p oliti cal re fug e es Th e majority so ug h t farml and and se tt le d in th e-then-w est ern states o f Ind iana, Illin oi s , Ohio, Wis consin,

~

~~Cerman in the Revolutionary and Early ' RepUblic an Periods

~:Du ri ng the A merica n Rev ol ution, as H eath ( 992) and C ra w fo r d 0 992b) .have n ot ed, th e Co n ti n e n ta l C ongres s had lib erall y translat ed im p ortant ~ documen ts into G e r m a n an d Fr ench b el iev in g that Enli ghtenme n t "id e a s (' of political lib ert y were univ e rsal, after all, and th er e was no re a son to "res tr ic t their e x p ress io n to En gli sh" (C rawford , 1992b, P: 9), In t h e ea rl y

i years o f the Re publi c, Ge rman w as in an anal og ous p osition to th at of '{( Sp a n is h in th e U n ited S ta tes toda y, Ger ma ns w ere hi ghl y co nce n tr a te d in l' some regions of th e new co u n try, with th e largest co nce n tr a tio n i n so u th -

::' eastern Penns ylvan ia (Gilb ert, 198]), A cco rding to Cra w for d (19 92c), by '." "178 7 Ger m a n A me ric a ns represe n te d a p ro p ortion o f th e populati on co m -

parabl e to th at o f H ispan ics tod a y (8 .6 p er cent v ers us 9 ,0 percent ) ." M or e- ov er, "T h e y too k pride in th e Ge r m a n lan gu a g e and cu ltu re, re s e nt in g Ben Fran klin's eff ort s to 'Angli fy ' their chil dren " Rec ogni z ing the r e ality o f lin gu istic and cu ltura l div er s ity amon g th e Republic ' s new citizen s, the Fram e rs o f th e Co ns ti tu tio n "d e cl in ed to give English of ficia l sta tu s in o ur Con s tituti on or to s to p print ing publ ic d o cuments in Ge r ma n ," A c cording to Crawford th is was n o o vers ight: "T h e p re va ili ng view, th en and th rou gh - out m ost of our h ist ory, was th at a demo cr at ic g o v e rnme n t has no bu sin ess tell in g the p e opl e h o w to tal k" (p 177) . H owever, d esp ite the fram ers' o r ig ina l int entio n s , M olesk y (1988 ) noted th at "s ile nce o f the Con stituti on on lan guag e matt e rs ha s had tw o o p p osi ng ra m ifica ti o ns " (p . 35) , F or s o m e, it see m s to en coura ge toler ati on for min o r it y langua g es w he rea s lea ving op en th e questi on o f language minority r ights, whereas o th e rs have inter- p reted its sil en ce o n language m atters as o pe n in g for lan guage restr iction- is m and th e impositi on o f English- onl y p oli cies (se e al s o Piatt, 19 92) ,

(see Fishman 1966 M I kv ., may also be ~ade; be~w~e:' ~1~8~; and ,I~:~ento, 1996), Further d istincti .... . guages with armies, and o th e r c~~~l~~~al anguag es , tha~ is, col onialla • wa s an offi cial imperial language irn a~guages. Spanish, for examp~ Spanish col on ial emp ir e, wh ereas E/~ise o n conqu ered peoples in ., Clal-imperial language u sed for off 8

1 sh was a d Ollllllant-but unof

c o lo n ies-eve n though " Eng la n d ' s IC: li p~rposes thr,oughout "" Eng .

g u a g e problems in their d eterminatfon cy ma~e,rs dId not, co nsider la ' co lo n ies" (H e a th 1992 p 20, I o f poliCI es f or their N ew World

, " ,se e aso l-!e a th, 1976 , 198 1). , .. "

.JI' ~· ~

German in the Colonia! Period : h

Because C erman was not an im eri a l la ' ',: development is s im ilar to that o f o th e r n,gua ? e "' N ?rth A m eri ca, lIB G e r m a n col onists were lin u i ti , , ~Ill on ty ImmIgrant languag~" d ' g S IC mlllOntJes wh o imrni do m m a ted by the Engli sh TI I' G nligrate to colonies '

, te ear lest erman settl e t i h • was. ~stablished in 168 3 (Co nze n, 1980) Th' men, III t e colo n ies ~ fcllnJlIes "fr o m the Germ an t f K ' I,~tee~ M eunonin- an d Quaker :~ " ! d own 0 refeJd arnved ' PI ' J d J '

o u n ed th e co m m u ni ty o f Germ an " III 11 a e p h ia and " ~ majority of the early G erm a ' ,town (Cas te IJa ns, ] 992, p ]5) , The _>~ f n ImmI g rants to North A ' (i ro m the late 17th through the ]8th centtlr' , ~enca Immigrating ,c.

edu cation was lilrgely secta ri a d , Ies ) were reli gIOUS refu g e es , Their :'j' , u an an p rIvately fu d d d

typicall y the primary lan guage f ' tr _ , 11 e r an Germa n was Prior to the A ' R 0 , ms I uction ( LeI bow i tz , 1974 ),

meri can evo lu t Io n so m ti notably by Benjamin Franklin against G e sen Im~nt wa s e xpress ed, most In a 1753 letter to a memb er' C , erman r e u ctance to u s e English, pla ined, "Few o f their childr en ~f ~harllCam ent, Franklin (1753/] 992) com-

B k III e o u n try learn En g!' h th ' man y 0 0 s from G e r m ilny " Fr k!" hn i IS ; ey Import dent as he s tated : ' ,an in s e t me and cla s s bia s es we re e vi-

Those ICerrn illl s/ w ho com o hither ~r' their ow~ Na tio n, and as I gnO riln ce'i sc;o7~~;ler illly Ihe mo st ignorant Stup id Sort of wo uld nll sleild it, and w ith Suspicio I ~: ten ded of Cred ulny w hen Knilve ry the English und erstand the Ce rrna L, W l en o nesty wo uld set it right; as few of from Ihe Press or Pul'l i t ' tis ' /,110 5'1n iln gu,il g,e, and so cannot add ress them ei ther

. ,,, 1111 POS SI 1 e to ' . entertain. (p. 19) remove any prej ud ices they once

Evidence suggests that Fr anklin ' s re iu d i , th e ir langua g e w ere ro ot ed ' , I p) Ices ~galllst the Germans and , 1I1 SOCIa and eco n o rni id ' III 1732, he h ad failed in an e ffo r t t I I hi C CO I1SI erati ons , Earlier

o a u nc 1 IS own G I r newspaper, and he dropp ed oth G . errnan- a ng u a g e d e l' erman-Janguage bli hiue to the succes s of a G erman ' pu IS Illg v entures also introdu ced G e r m a n al~ngCon:tPhetFlt_or (e

l r~wford, 1992b) . Franklin had

A d WI renCl III 1749 as I ' . .ca emy (Moore, 1937) , He al h ,( an e ec tivs III h is so ad reservah ons about th e " ifpaci 1St

3lt is important 10 recogn ize that th ere wa s co ns ide rab le div ersity w ithin the German imm igrant populat ion See, for ex a m p le, Rippley (1980)

Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries (1870s to 1914)

After the Civil War much o f the nation's p olitics were preoccupied first with Reconstructi on and transcontinental expansion, and later with massive industrialization and th en imperialism as manifested in the Spanish Ameri- can War (898 ). Imp erialistic end ea vors turned brutal as the United States forcibly put d own the Ph ilippine Insurrection 0899-1902). G erm a n immi- gr ation peaked in the last three decades o f the 19th century as nea rly 2.8 million'' entered the country, but it then declined sharply in the first two de cades o f the 20th centu ry when fewer than 500 ,000 Germans immigrated (Pitt , 1976).

Kloss (1977) , in his en cyclopedic study of language p olicies in the United States, concluded that 19th-century language policies were, for the most part, tolerance-oriented. Althou gh Kloss marshaled a consid erable body of evidence in making this case, Macias (992) noted that there is also an indicati on that the tolerance wa s applied se lective ly to certain groups . He suggested that tolerance was not arbitrary; rather, it was calculated . For Germans and o th er Eu ro pe a n immigrants, religious bigotry and economic competiti on b et ween groups w ere important contribut ing factors to inter-

217/: 9. WORLD WAR I ERA ENGLISH-ONLY POLICIES ~ .

succeeded in the having German-language instructi on all owed in th e first German publi c s ch o ol in 184 0 (Leib owit z , 1974 ; see also Schlossman, 1983).

Pri or to the Civil War, anti -Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment in- :i creas ed dramati call y. "C a tho lic d emands for s ta te a id to parochial sc hools ;~ and their protests again st the use of the Protestant Bible in the public schools ,'. caused viol ent rea ction " (Pitt, 1976, P: 283) . In 1844, anti-Catholic vio lence ;,., in Philadelphia culminat ed in the burnin g of two Catholic churches and

~l_

. ~i many Irish C a th o lic homes . Thirteen were killed and more than 50 were . injured . Because a s u bs ta n tia l porti on of the German American p opu lation

was Catholic, they too be came targets of e th no re lig io u s bigotry. Antebellum Nativism peaked in the 1850s under the leadership o f the

1: aptly named Kn ow-Nothing party, wh ich , by 1854 , had succeeded in electin g a number of g ov ern o rs and co n g ress io n a l and state r e p re- sentatives Among its more ambitious goals wa s a 21-year naturali zation period (Pitt, 1976) . A b ra ha m Lincoln's comments regarding th e party re- flected the sentiments of liberals of the period when he stated : "W h en the Know-Nothings get control, it [the D eclaration of Independence] wi il read all men are created equal , excep t negroesand [oreignersand Catholics" (p . 284) . With th e co m ing o f the Civil War, the Know-Nothing movement and its attacks o n immigrants and Catholics ended .

The Mid-19th Century (1836 to the Civil War)

By the 1830s, ma ss immigration was in creasing partly i n re sponse to J: structural changes in the U .S. economy. Many immigrants were eco nomi- } cally hard-pressed o n arrival and became co nce n tra ted in the urban areas ) , of the Northeast. Th e newly arrived: '.

Minnes ota, Michigan, Iowa, and Mi ssouri. Because Germans tended to be .~; the . maiority in many regions of these states, the German language was :E ma.lI1tall1e~, and s chool laws w .ere usually agnostic on the issue of language '>.: ' of mstruction (Kloss, 1977; Leibowitz, 1971, 1974; Macia s, 1992) . German wa s also widely u sed as the language of schooling becaus e most teachers :' in these areas spoke German (Macias, 1992) . "

"'>

Down-and-out immigrants o ften look ed li ke th e dr egs of humanit y In th eir first years h ~re they w ere weigh ed down hy po vert y. Driven hy wa nt and hy th e dcsire for familiar languages and [ac.cs. Ih osc who stayed in cities m oved in to th e ghe ttos that develop ed In the 1U]()s and 11l4()s (Pill , 1~ 7(" p . 2131)

Such was N ew York's Kleindeutschland , which was the home of some 100,000 Germans. Economic competition between groups was often mani- fested in interethnic social conflict (Macia s, 1992) .

During this period, languag e became more salient as an identifier of gro~p m.embers~ip . " Ra the r than being taken for granted a s part o f being an 1~1Imgrant, It became one of the markers o f being an immigrant" (~aClas, 1992, p. 5) . Lan guage prejudice was exacerbated by r eligious bigotry, Anglo-Saxon Prot estants considered Germans notor ious "Sa bba th breakers " who sacrilegiously enjoyed beer drink ing, theate r, music, and d~ncin~ o~ Sunday, as was the custom in Eu rope (Pitt, 1976) . Facing ~tJgmatl.zah?n fo: their "f oreign" languag es and manners and lacking int egration 111 th eir adopted land , Germans and o the r immi grants formed mutual aid societies and devel oped their own social and edu cational infrastructures . German immigrants " m a d e the s tro n g es t efforts to retain their Old World ways. German ghettos supported their own churches, schools, rest~urants, li~raries, and beer hall s . The 40 German-language newspapers 111 the u.s. III 1840 had in creased to 133 by 1852" (p. 281)

G radually, langua ge tolerance and the right to language cho ice were no lon~er taken as given . Th e first major lingu istic chall enge ca m e in Ohio dunng the late 1830s when an attempt wa s mad e to end instruction in German . Germans responded at the p olls by backing Dem ocratic ca nd i- dates and used their political clout to ensure th e continued use o f Ger- man-but not to the exclu sion of Engli sh As a re sult, in 1837 G e r m a n was put on an equal basis with English . In 1840 G erman Am ericans als o

THE FATE OF GERMAN DURING WORLD WAR I

Culture Wars 1914 to 1917

As noted, German immigration had been declining since the 18805. Many among the German-American population were assimilating culturally a~d linguistically into the dominant s ocie ty. However, at th~ outbreak ~f war til Europe, German and other foreign languages were widely used in some area s of the country, particularly in th e Great Plains states . In some localities of Nebraska, "German was used more than English," and the ability to speak a forei gn language was e ven consid ered an important qua lificat ion of a go od store clerk (Manley, 1959, P: 114). According to Conzen 0980; also

2199. WORLD WAR I ERA ENGLISH-ONLY POLICIES

agreed that "language saves the faith " and had strived to pr,eserv~ ~he language as long as possibl e (Conzen , 1980). In response to the rmpossition

~ of Engli sh -only ins tr u ct io n, a broad coaliti on o f German Lutherans, Ger- i man and Polish Ca th olics, Scandinavian Lutherans, and German Free- : thinkers voted in D emocrats supporting a n ti-Ed w a rd s (in Illinoi s) and

J anti-Benn ett (in Wisconsin) party platforms . In 1893 both act s wer e rep ealed ./ (Leibowitz, 1971, 1974; see also Luebke, 1969). The success of this reve rsal J:: was largely symbolic, h oweve r, as the prima cy of Engl ish -only instructio,n " had becom e an accorn pli sh ed fact (Macias , 1992). By 1900, th e p u bhc ~: schools were making inroads in the parochial school share of the German

:; language edu cational market. In that year public s chools w ere edu cating . 42% of students receiving German instruction-a 7% increase ov er 1886

'-:. (Conzen, 1980) . J In additi on to ch ur ch es and schools , the press was another v isible force (:- in cultural and linguistic preservation. However, according to C onzen ::;. (1980), the press was also a forc e for assimilation because-s-in ad d it ion to 'i- using the native language-it also provid ed information about th~ d~mi­ ", nant culture and how to adapt to it. During the 1880s, German publications

accounted for about 80 % of the foreign-language press in the United States . "The total peaked at a lmo s t 800 in 1893-1894" (p . 420) . How ever, given the decline in immigrati on , by 1900, German publicati ons had declined to 613.

By the early 20th- century, a number of factors were shaping la n guage policies . Urbanization and industrialization were increasing and pUb.lic scho oling was being extended. Macias (1992) contended that anot her SIg- nificant factor was th e increasing consolidati on of fed eral control over regional or local ethnic ar eas . He ar gued that tolerance-oriented langua ge policies occurred whe re the federal government's controls were weak. However, more restr ictive p olicies were likely to be implemented where there was an increas e in federal control, a rural to urban shift in population , and an increase in migration to an area by English speakers .

218

group c?n~icts. A.s milli on s of newcom er s e n te red the co u n try, with th/ , new ma~onty cO~.ll1g from east ern and so u the r n Europe, anti -immigration :,' and anti-Catholi oism reemerged as a growing forc e in nati onal p olitics \ und er the leadership of the Amer ican Prot ective Ass ociati on (A PA). It is .~ important to note th at widespread xen ophob ia a nd anti- Ciltholi cism co-oc- ;: ~urred with the r is: ~f Jim C:ow ism and the re su rge nce of ra cial op p ression ~;~ III the .South . NatIvI st sellllme~ts o f th e time w ere re flec ted in popular f magazllles and newspape rs, which p ortrayed the publi c schools as instru- . .. ment s for Anglo-Protestant accultu ration, Editori al s a nd p olitical ca rtoons " !~ regularly depict ed Catholi c s chools as tools for the H oly Roman s u bversion :\ (see Apple & Apple, 1982). In terms of language p olitics, the period between '''' :880 and 1900 ~as significant be cau se "it wa s durin g this period that ' ~~, increased repressive and exclusive lan gua ge legi slation was pa ssed by state ~, legislatures" (Macia s, 1992, p. 13), 'i~

Largely because o f its association with Catholic education, the German .'::.. ' language increas ingly became a target of A nglocentric school legislation in " ~ the ~a.st and t:tidwest during the 1880s. " As a result of the legislation ! requIrIng E.ngl.lsh as the only medium of instructi on in the publi c schools and the a~tI-ahenGe~m.an feeling, the Germans d eveloped large numbers of new pnvate and relig ious s ch ools" that displaced publi c s ch ools (Macias, , 1992, p . 14). In 1886,65% of s tu d e n ts receiving G erman instruction were : ~ein.g educated in parochial and secu lar p riv ate scho o ls-38% were receiv- :: . Ill~ instruct ion in Catholic schools, 23% in Protestant schools , and 4% in private scho ols (Con zen, 19S0). Because "German instruction in the public schools was always precariou s" o n ly the parochial sch ools and rural schools were effective in keeping " th e s econd generation within the cu ltu ral fold" (p . 420). N evertheless, to co m p e te with th e loss of students to these schools, many public s cho ols o ffered instructi on in German .

In an effort to counter the German retreat from public educati on, a number of s ta tes passed laws banning sectarian books in an effor t to thwart Catholic education. Between 1889 and 1890 New York Ohio I111'n I'

o • " , 05, WISCO?s.m, Nebr~ska, Kansas, and North and South Dakota passed laws ~res~nblllg English as the lan guage of instruction, in part be cause instruc- non m German was seen as promoting Catholicism (Leibowitz, 1971,1 974). The most noteworthy examples of the new linguistic intolerance were the 1889 Edwards Law of Illinois and the Bennett Law of Wisconsin. These laws clea.rly ~ltempted. to end lan~t~age tol erance and the right to language choice in educatlO.n by requIrIng both public and private elementary schools to use English as the language o f instruction .

German Lutherans, who also used German as a medium of instruction fou .nd them~elves ensnared in the same anti -German lan guage m ora ss a; their Catholic brethren. However, Protestants and Germans had long been

221 LLU

see Holli, 1981; Luebke, 1968), the outbreak of war in Europe rekindled'~ ethnic pride and interest in ancestral homelands . "Indeed , the heightened : " ethnic consciousness of the war years was a boon to German newspapers\ ; and organizations' previous dependence upon a constihlency that was;~ _ rapidly assimilating" (p . 422). The German press proudly took a pro-Ger-':'_ man stance and editorialized for U .S. neutrality. In 1914, U.s. support for ': the allies was far from a given . The United States had, after all, fought two7 wars (the American Revolution and the War of 1812) against England, and§ England had toyed with the notion of recognizing the South during the J~ Civil War. Moreover, a sizable minority of the U.S. population (about 13%)-':';,< was either first (2.5 %) or second generation (I 0.5%) German according to { the 1910 census . "

Initially, there were pro-German mass demonstrati ons, collections for :': war relief, and lobbying for arms as well as loan embargoes in German .'} American communities, and German Americans worked to defeat Wilson's " ': reelection as his pro-British sentiments became more evident (Conzen, / 1980; Holli , 1981) . Nevertheless, Conzen (980) concluded that for rnost "' German-Americans, pro-German activity "was a confirmation rather than ',;' a betrayal of their status as full American citizens" (p. 422) , f/

In cities with large imm igrant populations such as Chicago, for example, ,~~, the war in Europe generated "culture wars " among immigrant popula- ' ," tions . In 1914 , according to Holli (981), only 750 ,000 of Chicago's 2.4 [. million were native-born according to a school census . First- and secondv v generation Germans (about 400,000) constituted the largest ethnic block. ,:: The city also had a large number of Austrians (nearly 59,000) as well as ~ other groups of Irish, I~ussiall-]ewish,and Swedish origin-many of whom had little sympathy toward the Allies , However, there were also some 230,000 of Polish origin and 45,000 of English-origin whose loyalties were with the Allies.

Pro-German sentiment was initially flaunted by many German Ameri- cans. When war was declared in Europe, a throng of 5,000 German Ameri- cans jubilantly marched to the offices of Chicago's major dailies . Holli (981) noted that pro-German chauvinists tended to depict the war in ethnically offensive terms by characterizing it as a war between "Sla vs and Teutons" and "Western Civilization versus Russian barbarians." Even more inflammatory were their referen ces to " na t ura l serf races, " "half-Asiatic barbarians," and backward "hordes of the Muscovite" (p . 411) . A number of incidents of interethnic violence occurred amidst the highly volatile climate,

Optimistic about the outcome of the war, hopeful German Americans argued for compulsory German language instruction, believing destiny would ordain it as a world language. However, as the war in Europe raged

-----------_..", " ' '' - - - ''

' ," 1',9. WORLD WAR I ERA EN GLISH -ONL Y POLICIES

:' d tI e United States moved from a neutral to an increasingly .o n, an as 1 , , ti Id 110t be -,pro-A ll ies stance, it became apparent that their asplra IOns wou

realized .

i US. Entry Into the War and the Impact ,::of Entholinguistic Intolerance

.. Wh n the United States entered the war against Germany in 1917, most .; Ger~an Americans were unprepared for the onslau~ht that was a b ou t to

: '\ befall them . Although the majority of "German-Amen~annewspapers and :, associations quickly declared their loyalty" to the United ~tates, : storm

" of anti-Germanism raged between the fall of 1917 and spnng 1918 (~on- " 1980 422 , see also Luebke 1974, for a detailed history of the p e n od ).," zen , P: r , I'd tl

G' Americans became ensnared in both mass rysteria an re errnan I' f "t t I

attempt of the federal government to ready the Ll.S. popu ation o r 0 a l.\t' war," German Americans were blamed and suspected for acts of sab?~a,ge, " "Certainly German agents were after the food supply as well as the trtilities.

," And the entire state [of Colorado] was warne~ [by the Oellve~,PostJ that (frequently German-made) might contain ground glass (Dorsett,sausages , , dIG

1974 . 281). Among one of their more insIdIOUS all~ge p ot~, erman Am:rfcans were accused of conspiring to subvert Native A~encans,f ro m their patriotic duty of joining the armed services. When Native An:encans , C I d Utah Wyoming and Nevada opposed the draft, their oppo- In 0 ora 0", bl di d ' f ' . t as being based "on an understanda e IS a m or asition was no seen G

government that had confiscated their lands . On the contrary, errnan a ents had in filtra ted the tribes" (p . 283). . . g Amidst this climate of purported national vulnerability, ,state govern-

ts were asked to create state councils of defense . According to Manley ~~~4) in Nebraska, as in other states, the Council of Defense "had ,b ee n envisi~ned principally as an agency to mobilize the ~ta~e'slecon~mlfct~­ sources"; however, it soon became clear that the pnnClp~ :vor 0 ~ council would involve investigations of loyalty and patnot~sm. In Ne braska where more than quarter million of the state's population of about 1 2 miliion were either German-born (some 57,000) or of Germa n desc~nht

, I b f " ts" cn whic( b t 201 000) the council had an amp e num er 0 suspec , a ou , r d h ' d I' Withto conduct its work. Several of its members argue t, at mea, lng

"hesitating patriots" the Council "operated under a 'lllgher la,: than the Constitution: that the decisions and actions of,the State Council were not

bject to judicial review"; and that witnesses interrogated by the counsel su " "k I dge of the chargeshad no right to counsel, cross-examination, nor now e

brought" (p . 2) . I ' , State councils of defense had several popular targets : schoo s, urnverst-

ties, churches, and unions. In each case use of the German language was

223

In refl ectin g on th e climate of int imi d ati on th at it had helped to cr eate, the N eb raska Co u ncil o f Defe nse rat io nal ized th at "i f fo reign lan gua ges could b e ab olish ed . . . th e ali en p opul ation w ould be removed fr o m its tenu ou s an d dan g erous p os ition " (Ma n ley, 1964, p . 13). In th e true s pi ri t o f rep ressi on , th e Co u nc il reasoned th at it wou ld b e bett er if th e re m oval of German fro m ch urch es an d scho ols w e re volu ntary in or d er to "a ppease 'the ever-in creasing prejudice agai ns t eve ry th ing Ge rma n' w hic h th rea t- en ed to res u lt in d iso rd er a nd viol enc e" (p . 14). Pre ssure for " vo lu n tary " rejection o f Ge rma n took th e form o f charac ter assa ssin at ions, release s fro m em pl oym ent, a nd th e boycotti ng of Ger ma n-ow ne d bu sin ess - som e 285 of wh ich we re boycott ed in Colora do a lone (Dors ett , 1974) .

In Colorado, "ja ils were full o f p eople w ho a lleged ly ma d e p r o-Ge r- man s ta te me n ts or w ere s u s pe ct ed of s py in g," a n d so me "were h eld .. . for day s, an d e ven we eks w ithout du e p ro ce ss of Ja w " unt il th ey were clea red b y th e fed er al Sec re t Se rvice (Do rse tt , 1974, P: 288) . A n tici p a ti ng more strin g ent mea sures to b e ta ken ag a ins t th e Ja pan ese in World War II, s u perp a tri o t ic ci tize ns o f M es a Co u n ty, Co lora do, p ropos ed co nve r t- ing a local Indian s ch ool int o a n in term ent camp for Ge r man Americans. Althou gh th eir re co m men da tion wa s not act ed on, Ft. Dou gla s i n Utah was u s ed to intern a number o f ali en s s us pe cte d o f b ein g nati onal se curit y th reats .

In Texas a German Luther an Pastor was whippe d after he alleged ly con tinue d to prea ch in Ge rman . .. . In So uth Dako ta a count y counc il of de fense itself becam e the obj ect of mob thre ats whe n it met to co nsider the quest ion of granting permi ts to pastors or Germ an churches to give synopses o f their se rmo ns in Ge rma n at the close of English-language services. In Neb raska a Ge rman Lu ther an pa stor of a Church in Papillion was beate n by a mo b. . .. Schoo ls and churches w ere ransacke d (or German -language books. In South Dako ta, Ya nkto n high sc hoo l stude nts we re praised (or h;lving d umpe d the ir Ge rman-language textboo ks into Ihe Missouri Rive r as they sang Ihe "Star-Spa ngled Banne r." The bu rning of Ge rman -language bo oks as pa rt of supe r-pat riotic exercises occurred in Oak la nd, Hoope r, and Grand Island , Nebraska. In Boulder,Colorad o a Ge rma n-hook-b urn- ing rally was spo nsored hy the Universi ty of Colorad o pre parat ory school. Early in Septe mbe r 191 8, the Lut he ran paroc hial schoo l in Herington, Kansas was destroyed by fire by sup e r-patriots. (pp. 9-10)

'1,

, :. elud ed th at th e World Wa r I er a att ack o n p rofe s sors o f Germ an Ioreshad- ;' owed th e acad em ic purges of th e 1950s .

L .· As th e w ave of e th no ling u istic res tr ictionis t effor ts swept the cou n try, " som e 18,000 pe rso ns in th e M idw est al one w er e fin ed for lan gua ge vio la-

tions (Craw for d, 1995). Accordi ng to Lu eb ke ( 980), in m a ny com m u n ities mob r u le lead to Ger m a n Amer ica ns being threaten ed and beaten; some wer e ta r red a nd fea thered ; o thers had th eir h om es a nd bu ild in gs pa inte d yellow as a s ig n of di sl oyalty :

'~i 9. WORLD WAR I ERA ENGLISH-ONLY POLI CIES ~. ::.:....-.:.....:..........:.....- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --------

222 - - - - - - - - - . ~W~I~LE:.!.Y ',"

,l

se: n as p ro o f of d isloya lty. Accord ing to Manle y (964), in a co n fro n tation (.i wi th the Luth er an M issou ri Syn od th e Neb ras ka Sta te Co u nci l argued: :

lit) bel i e~ed that ."the (orclgn l angu ag~ papers, the sectio nal schoo l training .. . a nd the Cerman,~ c.Propaga nda e lllaniltlJlg (rom pu lpits occup ied by Kai ser age nts. cx p ~,a lnel d t~le t d rsGloyalty" of the Ger man Luther ans. These "Ne braska cae- sars -Ilat IS, tne errn an Luthera n pa stors-m ust be curbed a nd their use of the Ger ma n language e nde d . A pro pe r pat riotic sp irit co uld never be secured so long as the Ge rman la nguage co ntinued to be wide ly used . (pp. 8-9)

The N eb raska Co u nci l a ppli ed th e sa m e logi c regard ing th e co nne ction between langua~.e an d l? ya.lty to a numbe r of con tex ts . For exa m p le, it a nnou nce~ th a.t IIlstr~ctlon III sc hoo ls, wo rs hip se rvices in ch urches, [and] co n ve rsa ti o ns III p u b lic an d ov er th e teleph one mu st be in En gli sh " (Man- ley, 1964, P: 9). In Jefferson County th e local co u nci l ordered telephone , op era tors to "c u t o ff p a r ties" w ho us ed German (Ma nley, 1959, p . 114). .; '~l Ced a r CO~,nty pa~o~s :v e re admoni sh ed to re fra in from u sin g German so .;.. as no.t to cause rrrrtation or m isund erstand in g," and th ey we re issued ;;. pem~ I ts for th e us e of for eign lan gua g es un der threat of re v ocati on for ;~ a busive overus e (p . 115). .:,''''

~anl.ey. 0 : 59) not ed th at lib : a ries were a no the r po pu lar ta rg et o f eth- ' ~> nollll gUlslIc into lera nce, and -Ill so m e cases-the d ominant p ress itself ~ t1~at led th e atta ck o n freed om of expressio n . In lat e 1917, fo r ex a mp le, the .:(i. ~ 1~I~ol ll St ar, ~ n e ve r-ze a lo us ad vocate for th e cau s e of Am ericani zation, { in itia ted a d nve to p urg e from th e N eb ras ka State Libr a ry Co m m ission . s om e 1,000 Ge r man- la ng uag e books . Th e co m miss io n det e rm in ed that the boo ks we re prim a r ily o f intere st to eld erly Ge rma n American s . A re p or ter : rom the S tar e~amined th e books a nd not ed th at m an y h ad been prin ted 111 Germ an , which w as taken as pr oof o f th eir p r opa g an d a val u e for Ger- many ~ecause th ey " w e re no t A m eric a n bo oks w ith A mer ican id ea ls trans- lated 1I1to German " (Ma n ley, 1959, p . 126). In November o f 1917 the Nebrask a State Counc il of Defen se vote d un anim ousl y to have a ll Ce rrnan boo ks rem o ved from th e p u bl ic libra r ies .

Wilco x (993) obs erved that univ ersiti es w ere also "a fa vor ite ta rg et for ze a lots, wh~ were a nxio us to bel iev e that faculties ha rb or ed p ol itica lliber- a ls an d rad ~ca ls . Pr.ofessors a t severa l u ni ver siti es were di smiss ed on a~ cou n t of t~elr perceived la ck of s u pp or t for Ameri ca an d th e Alli es" (p . 59). A t th e L!lHv~rsity o f M ich ig an m ost of th e Ge r m a n p ro g ram wa s dis ma ntled wh en ~ I X?f ItS ~rofessors w :re rem oved . Wilc ox conten d ed th at a t th e heart of th e inciden t w~s a co n flict ov er how much ide olog ical di versi ty Ameri- cans wou ld all ow 111 publi c uni ve rsi ties" (p . 60). A t M ich igan, th e Germa n pro fessors. w e re ou sted by a coa lition of ex tre m is t profess ors wh o acted in co nce rt WIth p ow e rful a lum ni. Togethe r th ey w e re a ble to in fluen ce th regents and administration to re move the Ge rma n facuIty. Wilcox con~

An y person firm or co rpo ration in the State of Nebraska who shall publish, within the State of Nebraska, any newspaper, magazine, book, pamph~et , or other printed mailer in whatever form, in any langu~ge other than the E.nghsh language, shall as soon as print ed, file a copy th ereof WIth the State Coun cil o~ Defense. In additi on to such a copy ther e shall also be filed w ith the State Coun cil of Defense a co py of any translation s thereof into the English language required or furni shed

Impact on the German-Language Press

Alth ough th e G erman-language press had be en gradua.lly declinin~ for several d ecades, wartime repression g rea tly accelerated rts descent. TIle total number of G erman-language publi cations declined from 554 in 1910 to 234 in 1920; daily circulation was only about a quarter of its 1910 level" (Con zen, 1980, p. 423). After the United States entered the ~ar, cou~ty councils of defense requ ested German Americans to cancel their s ubscrip- tions (Manley, 1959); "In October, 1917, the United States Post O~fice. De- partment crea ted a system for licensi~g foreign-langu~ge publications . Before [books or peri odicals] cou ld be CIrculated , translations of each w.ere to be filed with local postal auth orities" (p . 120). In Nebraska such regUlre- ments became part the state's sedition act. According to Section 6:

2259. WORLD WAR I ERA ENGLISH-ONLY POLICIES

The attempt to coerce Lutheran pastors into patrioti c stance~ cor:npro- mised th eir religious views be cause many felt o~ligate.d to ma1l1tal~ the principle of s epa ra tio n of ch urch and state . ~he t:h ssoun Synod pu blished a pamphlet in its defen se that stressed the historical posture of the c h ur ch . It not ed that Ger m a n Luth erans had fled to the United States in 1 838 to escape persecuti on in their homeland, that the maj ority of Luthera ns were American-born, and that the church had not attempted to rationalize German wartime acts such as the sinking of the Lusitania (Manley, 1959).

Some cong reg a tio ns re sisted the imposition of English because m~ny of their members-especially the elderly-eould not understand Engllsh. In a modest accommodation, the Nebraska State Council moved to allow one day of foreign-language religious service per week . However, give.n the Anglophon e op p ositio n to foreign-language use, "the Stat~ Council ad- vised ministers who were offering fore ign-language services for older members of their congregations not to advertise or promote the special services" and care was taken to ensure that English -speaking p ers ons would n ot att end these meetings (Manley, 1959, P: 164).

The impact of repressi on on language shift amon~ G~r,mans an d speak- ers of other European immigrant languages was slgl11f1~ant The us~ of Engli sh "accelera ted rapidly in the churches as elsewhere; 1111917 one-SIXth of the Miss ouri Synod Lutheran Churches held at least one English.servic: a month , while at the end of the War, three-quarters were doing so (Conzen , 1980, p . 23).

The Assault on Religious Expression

Those who .steadfastly tried to retain their language for religi ous reasons were especially vulnerable to persecution . Luebke (1980) noted that in several Midwestern states German-speaking Mennonites were viciously attacked for their resolute maintenance of German as well as for their pacifism. In 1918, police narrowly res cued a Mennonite from a mob who h ad b~gun hanging him. Elsewhere, Mennonite students were s everely ostracized In the s u m m er of 1918, "so m e o f the m ost cons ervat ive Men- nonites of the Great Plains states decid ed that their status within the United States had become intolerable" (p. 10), and more than 1,500 left th e United States seeking refuge in the prai rie provinces of Canada. . Zealots were not satisfied with m ere ethnolin guistic restricti on- Ism-they demanded public patr iotic demonstrations of loyalty. Accord ing to Manley (I 959), Lutheran ministers and their congregations were singled out an~ put und er intense scrutiny to demonstrate their loyalty. In April of 1918, fIve Luthe ran pastors were denounced for refusing to parti cipate in a Lancaster Council of Defense patriotic rally held in Lincoln . In retaliation the Council threatened to use its influence "aga ins t those who had declined to participate" (p. 153). The fanaticism of th e attack was noted by the Nebraska State [ournal, which compared the incident to the New England witch-hunt hysteria.

WILEY

Manley (1959) conclu d ed that atta cks on G e rma n lan gua g e and cu ltu re also had sign ificant con sequences for o the r ethnolinguisti c grou ps . "Restrio- tions were being placed upon people who had always exhibited the highest patriotism, even though they did not sp eak English" (p 165) In Plainview, NE, a resident complained that his Danish-speaking m other, who had been a generous contributor to the Liberty Loan drives, "w as now d enied the comfort of her religion" (p . 164). Th ose of Swedish descent likewise suffered , C. A. Lennquist, wh o h eaded a home for children, protested to the Council t~at "t o ~,eprive an imm igrant of his language w as the same as 'di gging out h is eyes (p , 168) . Unmoved, the Nebraska C ouncil stayed the course, and its members expressed sat isfacti on that the s ta te "w ou ld soon be swept clean of the German languag e" (p. 172; emphasis added) . In the end , the eradica- tion of one's ancestral language became an essential component of Ameri- canization and the rite of passage into the Anglo-American fold-at least for those who would be all owed to assimilate.

The psychological impact o f ethnolin guisti c repression is impossible to c~lculate. How~ver, th~ pl ea. of one Nebra skan woman is telling. Writing directly to Pres ident WIlson III 1918, she impl ored: '''I beg you with all my heart not to make us destroy our language which we hav e learned from parents and grandparents' " (cited in Manl ey, 1959, p. 115).

224

.',

, . "I.; " ->

to the Post O ffice D epartment of the Federal Government (cited in Mlnle 1959 p. 304) ,~ ,

There is at ~he present.limc much di scussion among schoo l offi cials con cerning the advisability of co ntinuing the study of the German language in o ur schoo ls.

In order to co me to a sa ne d ecision on thi s problem as w ith any pro bl em it becomes necessa ry 10 we igh th e pro s and co ns accurately and wi tho utpre ju dice (p.2 5 7) .

227

Taking advantage o f the nati onal "em erg e n cy" as an oppo rtunity to prom ot e tea cher education, Coffman further argued that teacher training could no longer be left to local discreti on, because "the welfare and safety of th e co u n try demand federal recognition of tea cher training" (p. 64). In an effort to gain status and resources for teacher education, the field was linked to the noble purpose of national self-defense , Coffman exhorted: "The nati on must understand that teach ing is a fo rm of high patriotic servic e, and that the edu cation of the masses is as necessary for s ocia l solidarity and se curity as for so cial progress" (p . 65) . Teacher competence was to be m easured by patriotism and the ability to promote Americaniza-

tion throu gh En glish-only instruction. N ot all educators agreed, and a stubborn minority argued against basing

educational language policy solely on the contemporary political situation . "Their words were written in the educational periodi cals and on the pages of the newspap ers of the day" (Moore, 1937, P: 30). In South Dakota, for example, C ommissioner of Edu cation r. r. Claxton steadfastly h eld to the position that:

wh at th ese teachers did and w ere doin g for German y all teacher s in the f u ture mu st d o fo r Americ a. 1hei r patriot ism mu st b e of th e simo n-pure qu ality. The y mu st be familiar w ith and teach the facts about forei gn land s, but the id eals the y seek to implant must he Ame rican ide als, and the language of the graded sch oo ls in w hich these ide als are imparted must be the English language. (p. 63)

" We cannol afford to eliminate Ihe Ge rman language enti rely. ... I want it definitel y und erstood that my opinion is not influen ced by the entrance of the Un ited Sla tes int o War. I d o not believe our present relati ons w ith th e Ge rman

impos sible to study German without b eing influenced to a certain extent by German thought" (p . 262) . In a final appeal to feigned rationality, C ord y concluded: " Le t u s w e igh these facts sanely and let us decide that modern civilization has n o ne ed of the products of a people who are the 11uns of .

modern times " (p . 263) . For many e d uc a to rs, merely dropping Ge rman from the curricul u m was

an insuffici ent remedy for the lingering ill effe cts of German -la nguage instruction. In 1918, L. D . Coffman (1918) , dean of the C ollege of Ed ucati on at the University of Minnesota, writing in an NEA publication, con tended that "what the ro ot is to the tree , . . the German language is to Germany" and that the "sin ister influence of German Kultur" was part of a conspiracy of "many un-Am erican schools and many un-American teachers" (p . 62) . Coffman depicted German teachers as having utilized every op po rtunity to dev elop " a n affection for Germany which the war, in many instances, has been unable to di sturb" (p. 63) . To reverse the alleged Germa n indoc- trination, C offman prescribed Americanization imparted through English:

9. WORLD WAR I ERA ENGLISH-ONLY POLICIESWILEY

In"detailing his "il,ccurate" and "unprejudiced" view, Gordy explained t~a~ the G,erman mind while ~Iert for progress, is overwhelmingly ego- tistic, sordId: and has been stimulated, in its last frantic states by the dread[ed] rilsease-Teutomania" (pp . 260-261; emphasis add d) A

Id b I' , G e . s a :,ou - e inguist, ordy observed that German , as "a language lacking In e~phonysav~rs of the animalistic and does not produce a certain mental pol~h and, refinement ,of nature ess~ntial to civilized people" (pp. 261 262). Like many of hIS co n te m p o raries , he believed that " i t w ould be

The National Debate on German Language Instruction

?,uring . the war, writers in the popular press argued over the merits of drop~mg German altogeth er" from school programs (Goodri ch , 1918, p.

197). GI:en the ~o~u.larsupport for eliminating the German language from the curncultlln'"lt IS Important to ask where educators stood . According to Luebke (I :80>, Many educators lent th eir authority to the war on German- language m.struction i~ t~e schools" (p . 5) . Prominent educational journals and educatlOn~1 ass.oClahons such as the National Educati on Association (NEA) I~n~ their weight to the attack on German and support for English- only policies . The NEA even pressed Congress to pass the Smith-'T A t hi h ired rownes

c ' v: IC :eqUlre .states to be denied federal funds unless they enforced laws Imposlllg Enghsh as the language of instruction (Burnell, 1982).

Som~ educators ~eiled th eir atta cks in psuedo-object ivism . For example, G ordy, In a 1918 article for the Educational Review, began :

1.1.1.>

St~te counc~ls of defense carefully reviewed the German-language press for SI.g1.\S of disloyalty. In Nebraska , a hist ory profess or was retained to s crutini ze the press. Many in. the state argued that all for eign-language new~papersshould ca.rry English translations . In response, Walter Roskcky, president of the Foreign Language Press Association co u n tered that the "~ebraska Press Association ha.d been unable to name a s p ecific act of di sloyalty on the part of the foreign newspapers," and he cautioned: '''Let ';0 us remember that it is a SYSTEM we are fighting, NOT A PEOPLE"' - ' (Manley, 1959, P: 125; emphasis in original) .

'.:'

;9. WUKLU WI\ K I t: KA t.NL.L1~H-UNLY ....ULlUt.~

Th e variation in the melh od and in the extent of this delegation of a~ l ho r i ty by Ihe state 10 the local district is one explanJlion for the differences which a.ppea r in the methods used to olirnina te the study of the Ce rma~ languil ge In . th: second ary schools. For example, in California, the s l u~y of Ge rman was elull.l - natcd by resolution of the State Board of Educatio n: In Loui sl an a , .th ~ dev ice used was legislalive enactmenl; in South Dil~ola , the same objective ~as attained under the direction of the SIJte Council of Defense; If1 Iowa, elim Ill ~ ­ tion was accomplished by the direction of the State Supe rin tendent of P~bhc In slruction . In the majority of the stales, however, the authority 10 e ll. lllIna le Gcrmiln as il study was vested en tirely in the hands of the local co m rnuruty. (pp. 29- 30 )

em pi re should il Heet in iln y WilY Ihe policy of ou r schools in regilf(j 10 German instruction." (cite d in Moore, 19 3 7, p . J1)

Official Actions Against German-language Instruction .,

D es pit e C lax to n's p rot est, an d th ose o f a m in o r ity o f o thers , " by the middle' . o f th e sch ool y ea r 1917-1 918, th e tid e o f anti-G erm an lan gua g e feelin g was :' appro ach in g its hei ght" (Moo re, 1937, P: 34) and th e assault o n German- :~. ' langua g e instru cti on wa s in h igh gear. In N eb ra s ka, th e Cou nci l o f D efensa -i r ecru ited a p rofess or of Sla vic langua g es from th e Uni ve rsity of N ebraska "· to s urv ey th e ex te nt of forei gn lan gu age u se in th e sc hoo ls . A mo ng her) ... revelations were that so me 12,000 chi ld re n w ere attendin g parochiat:~ · sc hoo ls w he re Germ a n wa s tau ght or u sed . M or e s ta r tling to th e co u ncil!

f.

was that s eve ra l s u pe rin te nde n ts report ed that so me sc hoo ls began the day .~ with th e si ng in g of th e G erm an anth em and more th an 100 " fa iled to display ., th e American fla g " (Manl ey, 1964, P: 9). .

In December of 1917 both th e tea chin g a nd th e us e of a ll fo reig n Ian- i g uages- no t jus t G erm an - wa s bann ed in N ebras ka . Pri vately, it was ;, a d mi tt ed that the "S ta te Co u nci l a ctuall y had no leg al bas is fo r requiring .4- any s choo l to ban Germ an , But .. . a 'well defi ne d se n time n t' in th e s ta te 1l; demand ed that all sch ools u se o n ly ' the lan gua ge of o ur co u nrry" (M a nley, ~' 1964, p . 12). That " we ll d efined s entim ent" has b een m or e aptl y describ ed < as "disrespect for th e la w " (Lu eb ke, 1980, p . 9) . Wh en local sc hool boards ''0'; m oved too s lo w ly, Am er icani zers resor ted to burglary. Germa n textbooks vf w er e stolen from Sewa rd h igh schoo l (Ma nley, 1959). ·t

Des pite th e gen er al climate o f re pr ess ion ge nerated by th e w a r, it is -:, impor ta n t to n ot e that in some areas Ge r ma n in stru cti on rem a in ed p opular. ,. For exa m p le, as lat e a s Ap ril of 1918, tw ice as man y Trenton, N ew Jersey stud ents were enrolled in Ge rma n co urses as in Fre nc h o r Spa nis h co u rses (Moore, 1937 ). Given lan gua g e lo yalt y to Ger ma n it is im p o rt a nt to see officia l En gli sh -only lan gu ag e p ol ices, and th os e restr ictin g G e rm an a nd o ther fo re ign lan gu a ges , as impo rtant instrum ents of soc ia l co n tro l. In this re gard , Le ibowit z (1974) n ot ed that in th e earl y 1900s th e Fed eral gove rn - ~ m ent urg ed states to p ass s ta tu tes m an d atin g En gl ish a s th e lan gu a ge of instru cti on in b oth publi c a nd priva te sch ools . Fed er al urgin g in thi s are a dem on strates that the nat ion al gove rn me n t w as not a neutral bystand er in matter s of edu cati onal lan gu ag e po licy. Accord in g to Leibowitz, in 1903, 14 s ta tes h ad a s ta tu to ry req u ire m e n t impos in g Eng lis h a s th e la ngua ge of instruct ion . On the eve o f Wo rld War I in 1913, 17 s ta tes had s uc h a re gulati on. By 1923, a total o f 34 ha d im pos ed th e requ ir em ent. Thirt y-on e s ta tes pa ssed new, o r addition al, ed uc a tio na l lan gu a ge p oli cies bet w een 1917 and 1921, ac cord in g to Ed wards (1923). In 15 of th ose s ta tes the impositi on of Engli sh- onl y p olicies was ex p licitly lin ked to r estri cti on s on

.~ other lan gu a g es. Man y s ta tes m a d e it illegal to tea ch for ei gn lan gua g es in ~ the low e r grades, u suall y either b elo w G ra de 6 or G ra d e 8. . , . ' Des p ite encouragemen t from th e federa l governm.ent, ~onstl tl.Jt1 o na ~ ly ~ the prim ary res po nsi bility for edu cational .p ol icy res id es 111 th e a~th onty , of th e s ta tes. and durin g th e war th ey, III turn , all owed co nSIder ab le . ~ disere t i on to local dis tricts in the admini stration o f p ol icies . Thu s, ther e :;; was no uniform p a tte rn for excis ing Ger man from th e schoo ls. In a r e flec-

. '~. tive s tudy und e rt a k en less th an 20 years aft e r th e wa r, Moore (1937)

JJ observed :

;~~ ~

Th e b runt of the anti -German statut es w as felt in the pr im ary g ra des; how eve r, th er e was a lso a d et r im e ntal effec t a t th e seco nd a ry le v el. In Mar ch 1918, th e Literacy Digest und ertook a sur vey of se cond a ry s chools aroun d th e co u n try to d et ermine h ow man y ha d d ro pr:e d. G e,rma n lan - guage s tudy. O f th e 1,017 sc hoo ls repo r ti ng , 149 (a bo u t 15 Vo) in d icat e d that the y h a d e limina ted Ger ma n (Moore, 1937). H o w ev er, in ar eas ~here th e atta ck on Germa n h ad be en m o re v iciou s, s tud e n ts s h u n ne d Ger m a n as an elective . Bu rne ll (1982) not e d that in 1918 the Uni v er sit y of Mi ch ig a n (wh ich had fired si x of its Germa n -language fa cul ty ) se n t o u t a s u rvey to 200 M ich igan h igh sc hoo ls . In 166 s ch ools , Ger~a n w as not se lecte d b y a sin gle s tude n t. Th is was es pecia lly re marka b le III a st a te wh e re 11% of the

popul at ion claim ed Ge rma n an cestr y. . " By th e ear ly 192 05 th e combi na ~ ion o f a l~ ostJ1 e SO CI a l clima te and th e

for ce of offici a l res trictio n h ad a d isastrou s Im pa ct o n Ge r m a n la n gua ge enrollm ents . As G ilber t (198 1) d ocum ente d , nationally u.s. sch ool ~nroll ­ ments in Germa n had i ncreased from 10.5 % in 1890 to a record hI gh o f nea rly 24% i n 1915, but th en plun g ed to less than .1 % in 1922. Compar~­ tivel y in stru cti on in Fre nc h ro se from a bo u t 10 % III 1915 to ov er 15 % III 1922. ' Bet w e en 1915 a nd 1948 the p ercent a g e o f hi gh sc hoo l s tu de n ts nid yin g Germ a n ha d d rop p ed from nearl y o n e fourth of all s tude n ts to

~ess than 1% (Le ibow itz, 1971) . State d a ta r ev eal s s im ilar d ecl ines . In Michi gan in 19 15, for ex a m p le, o ver 96% of the hi gh schools offe~ed Ge rma n co m pared to o n ly 7.5 % in 1920 (Bu rne ll, 1982). Becau se man y h ig h

Americanization and Anglification : Panaceas of Assimilation or Placebos for Intolerance?

sc hoo ls d roppe d Cerrn an-Ian gu a g e ins tructio n, un ive rs ity ad mi ssio n re- q uireme n ts fo r fo reign -la n gu ag e prereq uisi tes were like w is e re laxe d or a me n d ed .

During the war y ears many states and local governments pass ed Ameri- ca n iza tio n la w s req uiri ng ad ul ts to ta ke pres cri be d courses in America ni- za tio n . Pu nd its, poli ticians, a nd academics deba ted the ext ent to which vario us Europ ean -orig in groups co u ld be assimila ted as well as the meri ts of America niza tio n . Eastern a nd southern Europea ns were d ee med less m elt a ble by Ang lo-Saxon chauv in ists an d, thu s, less likely ca nd ida tes for Ame rica niza tio n . N ev erth eless, a wave o f A m erica nizati on efforts swep t th e co u n try . Its many s u p porters a rg ued th at it was in d is p en sabl e for p rom ot ing assi m ila tion a nd nat ion al security.

H owever, aga ins t the p opular tid e o f Am er icani za tion th e re w ere some advoca tes o f cu ltura l pluralism . Th e m ost n otable o f the day was Horace Kall en wh o, w rit ing in Na/ iVII in Febr uary 1915, a rgu ed ag ai ns t b oth A me ri- cani zat ion and A ng lifica tio n. He co nte n ded that th e U n ited States "need not be h eld to a mon o lingual s tan dard for Eng lish w as to th e nat ion what La tin was to the Rom an Empire ," th at is, a "Ia ng uage of the upper and d ominant clas s, not necessa ril y th e m ass es or the p ro v in ces" (cited in H olli, 1981, P: 420). Kall en insis ted th a t eac h group "na tu ra lly wou ld h a ve its ow n em oti onal life, its own lan gua ge , a nd its in te llect ua l for ms in a 'tr ue Federal Stat e' .. . [i.e .], a fed era tion or com mo nw ea lth of nati on ali ties ." Possibl y a head of h is tim e, Ka lle n's voice was littl e more th a n an ec h o amids t the cla mo r for A ng lifica tio n a nd A merica nizatio n .

Across th e nation sc hoo l d istr icts offered civ ics an d Eng lis h classes for the foreign -born, a nd businesses a nd la bor u n io ns organi zed similar classes (McC ly mer, 1982). In Colorado, "aliens, natu ral ize d citizens, and chi ldren of fore ig n-born p a re n ts were req uired to a tte nd " A merica nizat io n classes a nd "s ig n oat hs o f loya lty to th e U nite d Sta tes gov ernme n t" (Dorse tt, 1974, p. 292). Fur ther, re sid ent s of foreign bi r th or p arenta ge were forced to join th e Ameri ca First Societ y an d sign its pl ed g e: "I p ledge m yself to b e, first of all , an A m erica n; to promo te with all m y p ow e r a k now ledge o f the lan guag e, th e history, the go ve rn me nt and the id ea ls of thi s co untry, and to su pport h er by every w ord a nd act in h er strug gl e for th e free do m of m ankind ."

"The sign in g of th e a rm istice o n 11 N ovember 1918 e nded the war aga ins t German y, but th e wa r again st Germa n langu age a nd cu lture in the United Sta tes continu ed with scarcely a ny di minut ion " (Lue bke, 1980, p . 11). The continuation of the assa u lt ca me as no surp r ise be cau se "bo th

231

In so overheated a clim ate. no deviation from the newl y,.and na~ro":,,l y, defi n ed "Americ " n W<lY " co uld be reg<lfd ed as.trivial; some .p" trlOIICorg" n.lzatlOn or oth~ r was sure 10 launch a cam paign 10 erad lGl lc II..The.General Federati on of ,:",om~n s Club s, for exampl e, becam e convinceJ that im migrant mo thers were. a reaction- ary force" and d etermined to " carry the English language and Ame ric an ~ay~ of caring fo r babie s, ventilating the house, preparing Am eri can vegetables, Instead

of the ine vitab le cabb <l ge" (p . 98 )

Th e A me rica n iza tio n mov em ent co ntinue d w ell int o the mid -1 920s . Desp ite its h ead y goa l o f tot al Am e r ican izati ?n , th e . e ndea vo: w~s n~t p ar ticul arl y effective, ei ther for teach in g En glIsh, or III p repann g i mrru - grant s fo r citize ns hip . T he moveme n t was larg el y d ecen tr ali zed an d ma ~y local progra ms lacked s uff icie n t resources (M~Cly~er: 1982). Th us , Its ma jor im pac t was esse n tia lly id eo logic a l. Ame:lCa ~lz~tlO~ wa~ probab~y more s uccessfu l in s tig matizi ng cu ltura l and IIng Ulshc d iver sity than 111 facilitat ing as s imil a tion . By th e lat e 1920s a~d ~arly 1930s, it ~ad suc.c~eded in co ntrib u ting to int erg en er at ion al con flict 111 m an y e th nic famil i es by weakening respect for th e la ngua ge and cu lture of p arents in th e e y es of child re n who were less th a n fu lly assimila ted (Montalto, 1982b) . Its e xcesses led to th e es ta b lish me n t of an int er cultural ed uca tio n m ovem ent that sought to reinstill a sense of cu ltu raI pr ide for a ge nera.tio n o f stude n ts left in a cu lt ur a l lim bo in th e wake o f th e American iza tIOn m oveme n t (see Mo n ta lto, 1982a , for a d et ail ed accou n t; se e als o Wiley, 1993).

THE IMPACT OF LANGUAGE RESTRICTIONISM AND REPRESSION IN THE UNITED STATES

Facin g officia l p olicies aim ed at eradi cat ing the u se of Germ an hara ssment from s ta te co u nci ls o f d efen se, th e ultranation ali sti c press, mo~s , and even law en force me n t many Ge r m a n Ame rica ns att empted th e eq Ulva le n t of an eth nic lob otom y: Na mes w er e ch a ng ed from Muelle~ to Mill er (D ors ett, 1974). The v ery word "Ge rma n" ha d b ecome so d espi cabl e that a Massa- chuse tts repor t on ch ildre n's health rep ort ed data o n Libe rty Measles ra~her than Germa n M ea sles (Moo re, 1937). "11 w as a tim e to submerge all s igns

Dem ocrat ic a nd Repu bli ca n ca nd id a tes h ad insi s ted o n 'p a tr iotic educa- tion' a fter th e war" (Ma n ley, 1964, P: 15). T he Red Scare w h ich followe~ the wa r also e nsured th at th e m ov em ent for Amer icaniza tio n wou ld co~tJ n ue . In Ap ril o f 1919 th e Chicago Tribulle bo ldly proclaimed, "O n ly an ag ile and d eter m in ed im m igra n t p oss ess ed o f over mas teri ng devo tio n to the la n d o f h is b irth ca n h o p e to es cape A mericaniza tio n b y at least o ne of th e m an y proce sses now b eing prepared ~or h is specia l b e n e fit." (McC.lymer, 198 2, p . 98). Regardi ng th is xe nop h obiC atmosphere for sing ular it y, McCly me r

obser ved :

9. WORLD WAR I ERA ENGLI SH-ONLY POLICIESWILEY230

o f Germa n- ness , an d th e Ger m a n co m m u n ity ne ve r re cove red" ([3 eltramo'J;: 1981, p . 352) . .~. : .

In th e 1910 l.J.S. ce ns us , ov e r 2.3 m i llio n p eopl e clai med to h a ve been ' G e:man -b o rn .a~ o pposed to less t han 1 7 m illio n in 1920 (C o n z e n, 1980);' <1, Thi s w as a s tr iki ng dec li ne eve n w he n co nsi der ing mor ta li ty a nd o u t-m j.o f g ra tio n . S ta te d at a a re e v en m ore re v ea ling . Bu rnell (1982) o bserved that in~! ' N e bra s ka I.l e~ rl.y 14 % o f th e popu la tio n had ide n tified itse lf as being of: G erman ongll1 III 191 0; h ow e ver, o n ly 4 .4% ma d e s im ilar clai ms in 1920. In ' Wisc o nsi n , th e dis appea ra nce o f Ge rma ns wa s e ve n m o re co nsp icuo us as ' th ~ ~ 920 data re p ort ed o n ly 6 .6% o f th e popu la tio n a s be in g of German o ng ll1 co m pa red to n earl y 29 % in 1910. Bu rnell co ncl u ded : .,;.

No oth er N o rth ~me ri ciIn ethnic gr(~ u r, P~ S I or pr esent has att em p ted so for cef ully to o fflClil ll y co nceal thei r ISlcl ethnit: o nglil S One m ust att ribu te th is reaction to th e w ave of repr essio n th at swep t the Co nt inent and envelop ed anyon e wi th a Germ an past. (p . 22 )

In ethni cally d iv e rs e cit ies l ik e C h ica g o, public de mo ns tra tions of the ex ten t of o ne 's Americani z ati on fa cto red in to in tere th nic ri valries. Holll ', (198 ]) ob~erved tl.lilt m~ ny P olish , C z ech , a nd S la vic Ame rica ns began . ~ :. se lf-co nscio us ly d ls ta nc ll1g them s elves fro m th eir " h yph e na ted " status. , : ,~ Some consp icuously be g an refer r in g to th eir a nces tra l h o m el and s as ::~ " mo th e rlands"-ra t her than th eir " fa th e rl a n d s" in a n effo r t to di s ta nce .f~ them selv es from ex p ress io ns that were a nalog o us to tho se in Ge r m a n. ;," Incr easin gly, d uri ng the interethni c "cultu r e w a rs " a demo ns tra tio n of ," A merica ni z a tio n becam e a m eans o f enhan cing the s ta tus of o n e's ethnic ' gro u p Over th at of o thers. How e ver, eve n Ted d y Rooseve lt, w ho frequ ently a t tac ked " h yp h e na ted Am ericans," exem p ted Greek A mer ica ns

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): The Official Status of English Versus the Salience of language Rights

In 1919, Ne b raska p as se d a law th at w as s im ilar to thos e of o th e r states w h ich prohibit ed fo re ig n lilllgu a ge instru cti on throu gh Grade 8 . As not ed, m ost s ta te~ a p pl ied su ch re s tri c tio ns to either G ra des 1 throu gh 6 or 1 throu gh 8 In a.n e ffo rt to m a ke fo re ign lan gu a g es in accessib le durin g th ose ages when ch ild re n w ould hav e th e be s t o ppo r tu n ity fo r ac q uiri ng th em . In 1923 a ll s uc h statutes were declare d unconstitutional (Piat t, 1992; see Edwards, 1923, for a co n te m pora ry re actio n) . Th e case th at bro ug h t the decisi on to a h ead wa s Meyer v. N ebraska, 262 Ll.S, 390 (1923; see C raw for d, 1992b , fo r text o f case) . M e yer tau gh t in a p a ro ch ial sc hoo l in Hamilton C.ounty, Nebra ska He was conv icted and fin ed fo r us in g a Germ a n Bible hi st ory b o ok a s a te x t for rea d ing bas ed on th e Nebrask a s ta tu te . Mey er lost in an appeal to the N eb ra sk a S u p re me Co ur t. Th e N eb ra ska co ur t reaso ne d

•• V I '\,.L LJ 1II111 ..... 1'\,. I L I"-'" ... . . ...... L .J I I ....., . -. L. I: .....,L.I_I ... J

::fuat tea chin g a nces tra l langu a g es to ch ildre n o[' imm.igra n ts was unfav o r- ~ able to nati on al s a fety a n d se lf-i n teres t. H owe ver, 111 1923 th e Su preme · Cour t over tu rned th e decisio n, a rgui ng that in pe ace time n o th reat to ' na tiona l secu r ity cou ld justify th e e x tre m ity o f th e Nebra ska la w . The C our t ~ argued th e N ebraska st atute viol ated the Du e Process C la use of th ~ Fo u r- : tee nth A m e ndme n t. It ru led in fa v or of Meyer b y a 7-2 m argm (see ' Craw for d., 1992b; Murp h y, 1992 ). .t Ne v erth eless , for a dv oca tes of fre edo m o f lan gu a ge cho ice an d lan gu a g e ":lrigh ts,4 th e rulin g esta b lis hed a shall o w precede n t. Fr om th e C?ur~'~ p e r- :':,spectiv e, th e s ignificant issu e in the case wa s the d ~fense o f in d ivi d u a l

~": liberti es-no t la ngu a ge rig hts for their ow n sake . Th e n ght to us e langu ag es ~ other th an E ng lis h was important o n ly in its associa tio n w ith o th e r m ore

.i:' fund a m e n tal p rotect ion s. O liver Wendell H o lm es' dissent was most f? re- ;, bodin g as h e argued th a t a ll ci tize ns of th e U ni ted St at es s h o u ld be req u i r ed i; to spea k a common ton gue (~urp~y, 199.2). Th e C~urt's m~!ori ty di d n ot , object to hi s p os iti on . Rather, It af firm ed It by a rg UI n g that th e power o f .j. the s ta te to co mpe l a tte nd a nc e at some sc hoo l a n d to ma k e ~ea ~on able

I ': regulat ion s fo r a ll s ch ool s, includ ing II requirement thai they shal! gIve instru c- . . lio1ls ill Ellglish is 1I0t quest ioned" (cited in No rg re n & N and a , 1 9~8,.P' 188,

empha s is a d de d ; s ee a lso Crawford, 1992c). Th us, f~ r from estab ~ J ~h 1l1g th e salien ce o f langu a g es rights, th e C ourt' s d ecision af firm ed th e o fficia l sta tus

F. of Eng lish -l an gu a g e ins tr uc tio n . . { Foll owin g th e M eyer d ecisi on th ere wa s no r us h to reesta~l ~ sh Ge~ma n­ ,". lan gua g e in stru ction to its pre-wa r l evel~ . Ma ny. com m u n ities w aIt,; d a "', numb e r o f ye ar s before bri ng in g Ge rma n in st r u ct ion ba ck becau s e a leg - .~ acy of re p ress ion" pers is te d (Bu rne ll, 198 2, p. 14).

THE FATE OF GERMAN IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES COMPARED

The Ge rman -o r igin popu la tio n in No r th A merica extends acro~s na.tional bound aries . Alt h ou gh th e re a re few studies that have address ed llnmlg r~ n t exp er ien ces a nd impac t o f lan gu age p olicies o n th em from a compara ~ve persp ect iv e .I Burnell (1982) h as d ern ou st ra ted th e im P?rtance .of s tu d Yll1.g the impac t o f Wo rl d Wa r I from su ch a perspec~ive ' .H~s pr.lI1Cl~al fo~u~ IS the "cross -c u ltura l impact of a s ing le eve n t o n a lingu isti c rrun or ity res id ing on either si d e o f a n i n tern a tio na l fro n tie r" (p 1). Burnell ch ro n icle d man y

4See Ma cias (979) for an o verv ie w o f iss u es rela ted to la n g ua ge ri gh ts . . . 5Lilng llilg e poli ci es a re freq uentl y a na lyz ed w ith in th e co ntex ts o f nati o nal bo u nda nes .

Alth oug h th e ir wo rk is n o t s pec ia lly re la ted to imm igra tion . Ph illip s on (1992) and To llefso n (199 1) p ro vid ed irn porf a nl exam p les of cross-nat ion al a na lys es o f lan g ua g e pol icies a nd th e impa ct of Eng lish as the d o mi na n t wo rld la ngu a ge .

simnaritres III the wartime ex pe rie nc e of German Canad ians w ith their . ~ k~ndred in .the Unit~d States . H owever, he also underscored one significa~t: dlffe:ence m Canadian language politics, that is, the official status of French .~. and Its numerical dominance in Qu ebe c. .:-

On the eve of World War I, German Canad ian s constituted a "s m a ll but ~ cohesive " group that was con centrated in the " Be rl in (later Kitch- i:, ener)-Waterloo districts of Ontario, " wh ere they constituted about 20% of ? the population and in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta , where they .?l comJ:>nsed at least 10% of t.he population (Burnell, 1982, p . 1). At the time, :" English- and French-speakmg Canadians ac counted for around 700/.: f th .I . 0 0 e popu ation, compared to German speakers, who comprised less than 6%. . ;'i ~

Burnell (982) obs erved that bilingual schools in Canada flourished in "" area~ :vh~re Germ~ns wer~ cOl:centrat~d , especially in rural areas and in ' localities infused With new imrmgranrs . Just as they did in the United States. . . In 1890, German Canadians had won the right "to receive in structi on in ;" Germ~n reading, gr~m~ar,and composition" on the request of a parent or '; ' guardian (p. 3)..Thls, nght was a matter of considerable controversy for ',~ ,,\,:glophones primarily because of their distrust of the quality of French bilingual s ch oo ls .

With the outbreak of war, "a n atm osphere of anti -Germanism • ; d d I .. , per '.

va e near y every aspect of Canadian life" just as it did in th e United :f~ States, and German -language instruction was likewise excised from mu ch t of t.he C~nadian curriculum (Burnell, 1982, p. 3). German professors at the ,:. Un~verslty of Toronto were suspended just as their colleagues were in the ',~ United States . When compUlsory education was mandated in Manitoba in . 1916, a c1a~se wa~ ad~ed that prohibited se cond-language instruction .

In drafting leglslation to end bilingual education in Canada :

Rese~rd,l qu estions 0 11 th e efficacy of learning a second I;mgUilge w ere sim ply not addr essed . Al thai hrn o ."wre wa s il pilucrly of d,lla on w hether chi ld ren who se moth er ton gue W,l Snot E:ngllsh would be mor e lik ely to succeed in scho o l (8 II 1 'J1l2, p. 7), . urn e ,

TI~is was the ~~se even i.f they were entitled to bilingual education. Enghsh-only policies were Implemented in Alberta and Silskatchewan' howev er, an except ion was made to ilccommodilte speakers of French: J3~rnell conclu~ed that English -only policies were in ten d ed to keep Cana- dian Anglo chll~ren from learn ing a second language, which , in fact, bec~.me the case 111 areas d ~l:linated by languages other than English .

FI~all:,' co ncern s over bdll1gual education were linked to fears of "Bol- shevism (Burnell, 1982, p . 6) just as anxieties regarding diversity were tied to the .Red Scare in the United States . H ow ever, Mennon ites , Ami sh, and other Insular religious groups were generally " no t perceived as a threat to

. the larg er Canadian suu",} ~ .. . they did in the United States (p. 8) .

CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPOSITION OF ENGLISH-ONLY POLICIES AND AMERICANIZATION

" ';".

.~ Following World War I, Burnell (1982) noted that "a n ti-Ger m a n feeling was : largely replac ed by an anger directed toward all symbols of foreign infl u- ~; ence" (p, 14). Nevertheless .. it is also important to rec ognize that more than .." xenophobia was at work. For those of European origin, the force a nd 'j breadth of th e atta ck on div ersity may have been new ; however, a care ful :.: review of the experiences of indigenous peoples as well as other peoples of ;. color indicates that the English-only movement was concerned with f a r '~ more than just language . In this regard , Tamura (993), in an analysis of t h e

relationship between the English -only movement and the anti -Japanese campaign in Hawaii between 1915 and 1940, contended :

The English-onl y effort w as an inl egral part of the Ameri canization cru sade. Underl ying the cru sade w as the do ctrin e of Anglo- Saxon supc riori ty-i- thc con - vict ion that Am erican lr;tils d erived fro m th e English, and that th e future of Ameri can dem ocracy dep end ed up on the survival of th e English lan guage and the dom inan ce of th e Anglo ·Saxon "race." tp . 37)

To contemporary ears the notion of an Anglo-Saxon "race," as opposed to a German or Italian race , may sound pe culiar. However, during the early 1900s, those of European o r igi n were frequently classified into Nordic, Alpin e, and Mediterranean races (Hakuta, 1986). In the European racial pecking order, Nordi cs w ere at the top and Mediterranians (Greeks and

. Italians) at the bottom . Nordic supremacists of the time considered Italians " to be a "s u p er io r sort of Chinaman" (Wyman, 1993, P: 100) , The war

encouraged some to make even finer distinctions between "Anglo-Saxons" and " H u ns."

Throughout th e war years, language was both a marker o f foreigner status and an instrument of raciali zation within the European-origin popu- lation . According to Miles (1989), raciali zation is "a process of delineation of group boundaries and an allocati on of persons w ithin those boundaries by primary reference to (supposedly) inherent and/or biological (usually phenotyp ical) characteristics. It is therefore an ideological process" (p . 74) , During the World War I era , linguistic, religious, and cultural differences functioned like ph ysi cal differences in defin ing intergroup boundaries of race. In a s ense th ey helped to establish a two-tiered racial classification system: One tier defin ed race within the European-origin population on the basis of language, religi on, cu ltur e-a nd to a lesser degree on physical

--- - " d iffe rence~; th e o th~r de fi,ned race betw een Eu ropean s a nd a ll o thers largely ~' o n th e basis ~ f ph ysi ca I d Iffe ~ences an d seco ndari ly o n th e bas is of language .;:. an d cUl tu r: . ,Howev: r: as G erman Am ericans and oth e r Europ ean -origin .;~ g rou p s assim ilated WIllIngl y, o r thr~t1gh co ercio n, into th e Englis h-s pe a king )~ f~ld a nd adopt~d th e Angl O-,domlllat e cu ltu re, co lor an d o ther physical ,~ d ifferences perS Is ted a s the p nmary d et erminan ts of ra ce be h-v ee n those of ;' Eu ropean .orig ~n and all oth er s . As th e s eco n d a nd th ird g enera tio ns of ':r' Eu : o p ean ImmI grants bec a rno lingu is ticall y hom o geni zed th rou gh A ng lifi- " cation , th ere w.as less co ncern a mo ng A ng lo-domi na te d, Eu ropea n- or igin peoples rega rding lan guage a s a mark e r o f "racial " differe nces.

In re flec ting o n th e sig ni fica nce o f th e w a rtim e a ttack on Germa n Am eri- cans a nd o the r Europea n-o rigin langu a g e min or ities , it is appa r ent that they s ha re d m any si milar exp eriences to tho s e which h ave m o re often pla gu ed p eo pl es of colo~. Mu ch of th a t ex p erience ha s, howev e r, been fo rg otten , o r repress ed , m the co llective m em ori es o f Euro pea n-o rig in peopl es. Su bse guentl y, many a m o ng th eir thi rd- and fo urth-g en eration des cendants ~' Cl,ve com e to assum e that th ei r gran dparents a nd great-gra nd- pa rents all wllIlll gl y d es ert ed th e ir an cestra l ton gu es an d cu ltu res . "

H oweve r, th e deg ree of com m onality in the exp erience of discrim ination e~cou ~~er by G er m a n Ameri can s and o th e r Euro p ea n-orig in la nguage mlll ontles compared to that of lingui st ic m in or it ies o f co lor can a lso be o verstress ed . Dor sett (974), for ex a m p le, n oted th e simil a r iti es in th e loss of due p rocess a n d atta ck on civ il liberti es exp er ie nc ed by Ge rm a n A m eri- cans of the Worl d War I e ra and Ja panes e A m eric a ns du rin g Wo rl d War II. He co ncl u ? ed that "our wre tched tr eahn ent o f Ja p anes e-Ameri ca ns was not an, aCCIde n ta l. ab er ration th at g rew o u t of w art ime h yst eria. Fur th er- more, It w,as nO,t sl~p~r a n extrem e cas e of w h ite A me r ica's degra da tio n of a .nan-w,hlte m in o nty ; ra ther, he locates it in th e " p ro p e ns ity to bu ry the BIll of RIght s" (p . 293).

. It is important to a c knowl ed g e thes e s im ilar ities ; n ev erthel ess, the ? I ~fe:ences 1Il treatm ent bet w e en gro u ps s ho u ld not be overlooked . Firs t, It IS Important to n ot e th at Dors ett's co mpa r iso n is across time th at is German Americans of th e World War I era co m pared to Japilnes~ Ameri~ cans of the Worl d Wa.r II pe r iod. It is, h ow ev er, p e rh a p s m o re in stru cti ve tO,compare th e ex p ; ne nces of th e ~o g ro ups durin g the sa me p e r iod , In thIS, r:ga:d, Tamu,~a s O? 93) anal ySIS of A m ericani zation and Eng lis h -o nly policies In Haw a ii dunn g Worl d Wa r I a nd its afterm ath is u seful. Firs t s he o~serves that-:-at. lea st OI~ , its s urface- the a ttack o n the Japanes~ Amencan popul ation 111 H a w a ii h ad mu ch in common with th e mainl and

6

I -l could a~o bearg ued l ~l at th e re is a th ird tier of group bo u ndary d elinea tion th aI is based arge y on soci a l class wh erein we a lth allo ws so me me m bers of a stig m a tized ! o~hl rallSd' ce nd, som efrdestrictio llS im p ose d o n the basis of percei ved physical ~~~:re~;:g:~~ o er Ime llSJOIlS 0 iversitv.

:.:. atta ck o n Ger ma n A merica ns . To illust r at e , Tamu ra not ed that th er e w as '~' an att empt to s u pp ress th e Japan es e-Jan?u a g e pr~ss , a n.d, to ab o l ish ~i Japan es e-lan g u age sc h oo ls H owever, d espite th ese slm llan,tles, s he co n- , '. tend ed th at th e En gli sh -onl y m o vem e nt had less to d o WIth lan gu 3g e l than w ith race a n d n at ion al o rig in . Th is b ecam e e v en m or e a ppa r e n t J;.' after Wo rl d Wa r 1. Th e sig n ifica n t differ en ce b etw e en th e treatm e n t of ' . the tw o g ro u ps is that th ere wa s no sys tema t ic e nde a vor to s egrega te

Germ an A me ri c a n s from A ng lo -A me r ica ns , as was th e cas e fo r Jap a n ese Ame r ican s in th e years fo llo w i ng the w a r,

It is o n ly th rou gh a care f u l com parative anal ysi s of th e differe~t.ial impa ct of A merica n iz a tio n a n d th e im posi tio n o f Eng lis h-o n ly po li c ies that we can un d erstand th e pro cess es of b oth as sim ilation a n d exclus ion. The w ork of Le ib owit z (1969, 1971) repres ents a pio n ee r ing e xa mple of

" the compa ra tive a n a lysis of th e im p osit io n o f En gl ish -onl y ~olicies a nd Engl ish litera cy requ ir ement s o n va r io us gro u ps, s uc h a s A fnc a n A,me n - cans, Ge r m a n A m er ica ns , Nativ e Am e ricans, Japan es e Ame ric ans. Pue rt o Rica n A me r ica ns , and M e xican A m e rica ns . H e d emons t r ates h ow th e En g lis h -la n g uage i ns tr u c tio n r eq u irem ent a n d a n ti- fo reign - Ian- guag e requirem ents m asked d is crimin at ory int entions a,g~inst t h.es e g ro u ps o n th e bas is of reli gion , race (d efin ed h e re as a socio id eo logi ca l con s tru ct b ased o n p e rce ived ph ysi cal differen ces b etw een gro u p s ), a nd nation al or ig in u suall y in co n tex ts o f int e rgroup po lit ica l and ec o n omic compet it ion . Am ericani zation a nd English -only policie~ al s o h~~ a s ig - nifi cant impac t o n o ther gro u ps, s u c h as th os e o f Me xi can o n gm (s ee Oln eck & La z e r s on , 1980), Exam ples su ch as th ese point to th e n eed for furth e r cross-gro u p comparison s regard in g the im pact of th e imp osition of En gli sh -onl y po licies a n d Am e r icani za tion, e s p e ciall y beca ~s e ev e n toda y it is fr e qu entl y arg ue d th a t s uc h p ol icie s are in th e b est interest s of all chi ld re n . M any of the stud ies that w e do hav e (see a lso Mench aca & Valen cia , 1990; Weinb e rg, 1995 ) s u gges t that , d espite th e s im ila r ities in th e rhe to ric rega rdi ng the n eed for A ng lifica tio n , En g lish -onl y ~oli­ cies h a d a subst antiall y d iff ere n tia l im p a ct a cro s s grou p s, especially when rac ia l di fference s w e r e co ns id e re d s ig n ifica n t by th e dom inant

g ro u p . . . , .. , . Th e ide o logy o f Am e ri cani z at ion an d Anglifi cation prom ised s tru c-

tural ass im ila tio n, that is, so cial mobilit y, allow ing th e "e n tr a nce of im m igra n ts an d th eir d es cendants int~ t!, e ~oc i a l cl iq u es , ?r?a n iza t~o n~; inst itu ti onal a cti v it ies , and g en e ral CI VI C life o f th e recel vlllg society (Weiss, 1982, p. xi i). H ow ever, for many g ro u ps A n: e r~ca niza t i on ,a nd En gli sh- onl y p ol ici es re nege d o n th at p rom ise b y a ssl gllln g gener~ tlOns of min o rit y chi ldre n to segrega ted and in fe r io r s cho o ls eve n as It w as claim ed that m andated co n fo r m ity was oste ns ib ly for the ir o w n g ood .

Ap p le). J., & App le, ~ . (1982). The huddl ed ma sses and th e li tt le red sc hool house. In B. J. We ISs (Ed .), Ed ucation al/d the Europeal/ im migran i: 1840-1 940 (pp. 17- 30) . U rbana: Uni ver- s ity o f Illi nois Pr ess .

Beltrarno, A . F. (198\) . Profile o f a sta te : M on tana . In C. A . Ferg uson & S. 13. H eath , (Eds .), Lallguage III the lI S A (pp . 339 - 380>. Ca m b ri d ge , E ng la nd : Cambridge Un ivers ity Press .

Burn ell , J. B. (J982, M a rch ). Tire dec/il/e of Germal/ lal/guage and cultu re ill tile Nortlr American heartlall~, 1890-1 923 . Paper p rese n ted a t th e An nua l M ee ting of the Com pa ra t ive a nd Int ernati on al Ed u cati o n Society, Ne w York . (ERIC D ocum e n t Reprod u ctio n Se rvic N ED 228 135) e. o.

Cas te lla ns, ,?'.(1992).. A p o lyg lo t na tio n . In J. C ra w fo rd <Ed .), Lallg uage loyalties: A source book 0 11 the tlff/cm/ EllgllSl, eOll trouasy (p p . 13-1 8). C h icag o : Un ive rsit y of C h.ic ago Press.

Coffm a n,. L'. D . (191 8 ). Compe te nt tea ch ers for Am eri ca n c hi ld re n . In Naiionnt Ed/lcatiOlw l Ass~,allOll : A~dress~sa lld pTOceedi,.,gs ofl he{lfly-sixlllallllllalm eetillg (p p . 62--66). Was h i ng ton, lX. Secret a ry s O ffice of the N a tiona l Ed u ca tion Associa tio n .

C o nze n, K. N : (J980). Ge r mans . In S. T. Th e rnst rom, A. O rlo v, & O . H andl in (Eds .), Harvard encyclopedia of Americall ethnic groups (p p . 404-425) . Cambridge, M A : Bel kn a P ress of H a rv ard U nivers ity Pres s . p

Cra wf o rd , J. (J 992a) . Huld yUill tongue: Bilinguatism alld the po/i/ics 01 " Ellglish Ollly " R di M A- A d d ' WI ' ea mg ,

. Is on - es ey. Crawf~rd , J. (E~ . ) . (J.992 b). 1~llgu age loyalties: A source book UI/ the official EI/glish colltrouersy.

C h icago: U nive rs ity o f C h ica go Press . C r awford , J. (l 992c). W~l ~t' S beh~nd o fficia l Englis h? I n J. C raw ford (Ed .), Language loyalties: A

~::e book Oil the offiewl Eugtisn controuersv (p p. 171-1 77). C h icago: U niversi ty of C hicago

Crawford , J. (J995) . Bilingun l educat ion: H ist l)ry, politics, theory, and practice (3rd ed.) . Los Angeles : Bilin gu al Ed u ca tio n Services.

Dorsett, L. W. (J 97 4). Th e o rdea l of C o lorado's Germans durin g World War I. Colorado Magazille, 51,277- 293.

Edwards, I. N . (J9 23). Th e leg al s ta tus of fo reign la n gua ges in th e s ch ools . Elementaru School [ournal , 24, 270- 278. .

Fishman, J. A . (Ed .). (1966). Lal/guage luyally ill tire United Sl ates. Th e Hag ue N th I d· Mouton. ' e er an s.

Franklin, B. (J 992) . Th e Ge rma n la n g u ag e in Pen nsy lva nia . In J. C ra w fo rd (Ed) 1 loyalties: A sOllrce book Oil the official Ellglislr cOllt rouersy (p p 18-1 9) C h i . U· '. 'ersitvof CI

. P . . ca go. ruversity 0 llcago res s. (Original w o r k p ub lis h ed 1753)

Gibson, .M. A , & <?gb u, J. U . <Eds .). (199 1). M illority stailis and scucoiing: A comparat ioe study of immigran! alld l1I uolulllary m inorities. Ne w Yo rk: G a rla nd .

Gilbert, G . G. (1981) . ~rench an d Ge r m a n: A co rn para tiv e s tudy. In C. A. Ferg uso n &S . 13 . Heath (Ed s .), Langu age III tire lIS A (pp 257- 272) . Ca mb rid ge , Eng la nd: Ca mbridge University Pr ess .

Goodri ch , C. G . ( 91 8). Sh a ll w e tea ch Germa n in our public s chools? O utlook; 119, 195-197. G ord y, H. M . (191 8). :he Ge r ma n la u g u ng e in o u r s cho o ls. Educational Reoicio, 56, 257 - 263. Hakut a, K. (1986). Mllro r. of langu age: Tire debate Oil bitinguntism. N ew Yor k : Bas ic Books . Heath , S. B. (1976) . Colon l~ l la nguage s ta tu s achi ev em en t: M e xico, Pent , a nd th e U ni te d States .

In A . Verdood t & R. ~Jolset h (Eds .), Louguage and sociology . Louvai n , Belgium: Pe eters . Heath, S. B. ( ~981) . Eng lis h 111 our la ng u a ge he rit ag e . In C. A . Ferg uso n & S. B. H eath (Ed s.)

Language in the li SA (pp . 6-20), Ca mbridge, England : Cambridge U niversity Press . ' Heath , S. B. ( 992). Wh y ~o o fficia l ton g u e? In J. Crawfo rd (Ed .), LallgllOge loyalties: A source

bookon the offiernl EllgltsJr cO lllrouersy (pp . 20-31) . C hica g o : Un ivers ity of C h icago Pr ess.

Holli , M G . (1981) . Teu ron vs . Sla v : Th e G rea t War s in ks C h icago' s German Kultur. Etllllicity,

8,406---451. Kloss , H . (1971) . La ngua ge ri gh ts o f imm igran t gro u ps IlltematiOlwl MigraUOII Reuie1o, 5,

250-268 . Kloss , H . (1977) . The Americn» b il i ll~ I IOI t raditiOl I. Ho wl ey, MA : Newbury House Leib o wit z , A. H . (1969) . Englis h li ter acy : Lega lsa nclio n fo r di scrimination. NoIre Dame Lawver,

250), 7--66 Leibo w it z , A . H . (1971 ). EducatiOllal policy alld political acceptalice: The impositiOlI of Ellgiish as tlJ e

lallgrlO ge of illstrlle/iull ill Amcricml schools . (ERIC Do cu me n t Reproduction Ser vice No , ED

047 32 1) Leib o w it z , A . H . 0 97 4, August) . Languag): as a mealls uf social ClHl trol. Tile Unit ed States experience.

Pape r pres en ted at th e VlII World C o ng ress of Sociolog y, Uni ve rsity o f Toronto, Toro n to,

Canada . (E RIC Document Reproduct ion Se rvi ce No . ED 093 168) Luebk e , F.C. ( 968) . T he Ge n n a n -Am e rica n a llia nce i n Neb ras ka , 1910 -1 917. Nebraska H ist ory,

49, 165-185. Lu eb ke, F. C. ( 969) . Immigrall/s alld politics: Tlte GermallS of Nebraska : 1880-1 900. Lin c oln :

Un iversil y o f N ebraska Pr ess. Lu eb ke , F. C. ( 974). Dmlds of loynlty: Gernrall-A nrericallS /IIrd World War I. De Ka lb: Nort he rn

Illinois U ni ver s ity Press . Luebke, F. C. (980). Lega l res t rict ions on fore ign lan gua ges in th e G re a t Pla ins s t a tes ,

1917-1 9 23 . In P. Scha ch (Ed .). Lallgllages ill collflicl: LitlgIIisl ic acCllltli ratioll 011 tIre Grea l P IaillS

(pp . 1-1 9 ). Lin co ln : U nive rs it y of N eb ras ka Press . Macias , R. F. ( 979). C ho ice of la ngu a g e as a human r ight-Pu bli c p oli cy implica tions i n th e

Uni ted S ta les . I n R. V. Pa d illa (Ed .), Bi/illgual edlicatiulI /IIl d public policy ill the lIll ited S lates. £t1l1wperspectives ill bilillglla/ educatw ll research (Vol. I, pp . 39- 75) . Ypsi la n ti: Eas te rn M ichi-

ga n U niversi ty. Macias , R. F (1992) . "Call/dnll/-buil & bubble"-lI,riled Stales Imr guage policy tOlVards illdigellous

Imrguage grollps. U npublis hed paper, Ling u istic M in o rit y Res ea rch Institut e, U nive rs ity of

Ca lifornia a t San ta Barbara . Manl ey, R. N . (195 9) . Tire N ebraskn State Council of Delense: Loyalty programs alld policies d u ring

World War I. U npu blis h ed m asters th es is, U ni versi ty o f Nebraska . Ma nl ey, R. N . (1964) . Lang ua ge , lo yalt y and libe rty : Th e Nebraska State Council of Defens e

a nd th e Lu theran ch u rche s , 1917-1 918. COli cordia Historical Illstil ute Qltnrlerly, 37(1) , 1-1 6 . McCl ym er, J. F. (1982). T he Am eri ca n iza tion m o vement and th e ed uca tio n of the foreign-born

adult, 191 4-1 925 . In B. J.We is s (Ed '>, Educatio'l alld the Ellropeall immigralll: 1840-1940 (pp. 96-11 6) . Ur ba na : Univ er s ity o f Ill in ois Pr es s .

McKay, S. L., & We in st ein -SIlT, G . ( 993). Englis h lit er acy in th e U.s .: National policies, personal

con sequ en ces . TE SUL Q unrterly, 27(3), 399--419 . Men ch a ca , M ., & Va len cia , R. R. (1990) . A nglo -Sa xo n ideolog ies in the 1920s-1930s: Their

impa ct on th e s eg rega tio n o f M exican st u d e nts in Ca liforn ia. Allthropology & EdlicatiOlI

Quarterly, 21. 222-249 . Miles , R. (1989) . I~ nc ism . l.o nd o n : Ro u tledge . Moles k y, J (1988) . U nd ers tand ing th e Am eri can Linguis tic M os ai c: A historical overview of

la n gu a ge m a int e nan ce and la ng u a g e shift. I n S. L. McKa y & S. C. Wong (Eds .), Language diuersily : t~ es Oll rce ur problem? A Stlcial nlld edllcat i'HIO I perspec/ive Oil lallgllage milllJrities ill the lI lIited States (p p . 69 - 107) . C ilm b ri d ge, M A : Newbury Ho use.

Mont alt o , N . V. (1982a) . A Il istory oflh e illlerCll ItIIral edllcatiUl lO l mouemellt, 1924-1 941 . New York :

Ga rland . Mont a lto , N . V. (l982bl . T he In te rcult u ra l Ed uca tion Moveme n t 1924--41: The growth o f

to ler an ce as a fo r m o f in tolerance . In B. J. Weiss , (Ed .) Educatioll alld ti,e Ellropeall imllligrnP lt: 1840 -1 940 (pp . 142- 160). U r ban a : U niv ersity o f Ill ino is Pr es s .

2 39 9. WORLD WAR I ERA ENGLISH-ONLY POLICIESWILEY

REFERENCES

238

2.41 9 . W O R LD WAR I ERA ENGLISH-ONLY PUUClES

Wil T G & I uk es M . (1996) Eng lish-O nly and s ta nda rd English iu eologies in the Un iled

1 ey, . ~ ., ~ I Slates . TES UL Ql/arterly,.1, 5 11-53 0 .

~ W M (1993). ROllll d-Irip /0 Am erica : The ill/migrnll/s re/ lm . 10 Europe, 1880-19.30 . l t I raca, .; yman , . < NY: Cornell Universit y Press

WILEY240

Moo re, W. H. (1937 ). The collflict COl IUrl/illS the German Iauguag): alld Ccrman propagallda ill Iht pllblic schw ts. Unpubl ish ed d octoral di ssertati on , Sta nfo rd Uni versit y, Sta nford , C A. "';"

Murphy, P. L (1992) . Meyer v. Nebra ska, In K. L H all (Ed.), The Oxford colI/pQ/liu/1 to the Supreme :; , Court of the Ullited Stales (1'1" 543---544) New York: Oxfo rd Uni versity Press , ' -

N orgren, J., & Nanda, S. (1988). Am ericall culturai pluratism Q/ ld the law. New York: Pr aeger. (See es peci ally chapter 10: Lan gua ge, cu lt ure, and th e cou rts, Pl" 185-199)

O g bu , J. U " & Matute-Bianchi. M, E, (1986), Und erstandin g soc iocu lt ur al factors : Kn owledge. id entit y, and school ad justment In Beyolld iangnag«: Socia l and C111t IIral[actors illschoo lillg for lallgllage minoriiv stud ents (PI" 73-142). Los Angeles: Eva lu a tio n, Dissemination & Assess- ment Ce nter, Ca liforni a Stat e Uni ver sity.

Olneck, M. R., & Lazerson , M , (1980> . Education . ln S. Th ernstrom , A. O rlo v, & O . Handlin (Eds .), Harvard ellcyclopedia of Americall ethnic grollps (p l" 303---319). Ca mbrid ge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Lingu istic imperialism. Oxford , En gland: Oxford University Press. Piall , B. (1992). The confusing slate o f minority langu age right s . InJ. Crawford (Ed.), Lallguage

loyalties: A sourcebookall the official Ellglish colI/rvversy (pI" 229- 234). Chicago: Uni versity of Ch icago Press .

Pill , L (1976). We Am ericans (Vols . 1 & 2). Gl en view, IL: Scoll , Foresman . Ricento, T. (996). Language policy in th e United Sta les . In M. Herriman & B. Burn ab y (Eds.),

Lnllgllage policies ill English dOll/illOnt cOlllltries: Six case studies (pp 122-1 58). C lev ed on, England : Multilingual Matters ,

Rippl ey, L. V J. (1980). G ermans from Russia. In S. T. Th ernstrom, A. Orl o v, & O . Handlin (Eds.), Harvard encvclopedia of Americall ethnic grollps (pl" 425-430). Cambrid ge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Schl ossman, S. L (1983). Is there an American traditi on of bilingual education? G erm a n in the public elem en tary s ch ools , 1!l40-1 919. Americall [ournalof Educntion, 91 , 139-1 86.

Tamura, E. H . (1993). Th e English-Onl y effort , the a nti-ja pa nes e ca m pa ig n, a nd language acquisiti on in th e edu cati on o f Japanese Am eri cans in Hawaii, 1915-1 940. lIisturyof Eduen/ion Qrwrterly, 33, 37-5 8.

Tollefs on, J. W. (1989). Al ien wi/Ids: The reeducation of America's Illdocirin ese refugees. N ew York: Praeger.

Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Plalllling language, planning inequality: Languagepolio} ill tire CO III/IlUliity. New York: Longman.

Veltman, C. (1983). Language shift ill the UlliJed States. Berlin : Mouton. Weinberg, M. (1995). A cllallce to learn: A history of race alld education ill lire Un ited Slates.

Ca mbridg e, England : Ca mbrid ge University Press . Weiss . B. (Ed .) (1982). Am erican education anll tire European immigrant, 1840-1 940. Urbana:

Un iver sity of Illin ois Press . Wilcox, C. (1993). World Wnr I a nd the attack o n p rofesso rs of German a t th e Unive rsity of

Michigan. Hislory of Education QI/arterly, 33(1), 60- 84. Wiley, T. G. (986). The significan ce of language and cu ltur al barriers for th e Eu ro-Arnerican

eld erly. In C. L Hayes, R. A. Kalish, & D. Guttmann (Eds .), The Eum-Am ericall elderly: A guide 10practice (pl" 35-50>. New York: Springer.

Wiley, T. G . (1993). Back from the pa st : In search of models of multicultural ed uc a tio n . joun m] of CelleraI Education, 42(4), 280-300.

Wiley, T. G . (1996a ). Language pl anning and lan guage pol icy. In S. McKay & N . H ornberger (Ed s.), Sociolingllis/icsQ/ld Iall gl/age leachillg (pp . 103-14 7). C am brid ge , En glan d :Cambridge Un iversity Press .

Wiley. TG . (1996b). Litcracv and lallgl/age div ersity ill the United Slat es. Washington, IX/McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems

~.:; .

'-

'..;'

". r