I swallowed a couple of bugs. Pt. 2 by JonnyQuest

JONNYQUEST'S BLOG

JonnyQuest

I swallowed a couple of bugs. Pt. 2
Monday, October 2, 2006

Continued from: http://www.fireflyfans.net/showblog.asp?b=5194

\Begin critique paragraph one. First it’s not a simple matter. It’s not corporate good intentions (could argue there’s no such thing). Is “shameless commercial pandering” the only other thing it could be? Is the “growing hoard of…immigrants” made up entirely of illegals? Isn’t it just good market strategy to reach the widest possible demographic by any means necessary and legal? Why do bi-lingual market programs force us to address this question (What is their motive? Is this the right question?)? Is it somehow un -American to promote goods and services bi-lingually? Is it un -American to be bi-lingual? Or an immigrant? Or a descendent of immigrants? Or even to break the law?

Using rapid-fire speed, the author uses emotionally charged words to fuel his rhetoric instead of justifying his views with reason. “Shameless commercial pandering”, growing hoard” and “illegal immigrants” are set in apposition to the benevolence of “corporate good intentions”. “Large American retailers” “elect” to put themselves at odds with “ American consumers” by way of bi-lingual marketing. American against American. Brother against brother. Another Civil War. /End critique paragraph one.

\Begin critique paragraph two. I have not found it generally conceded by anyone that English is what holds this country together. It has been a great facilitator toward that end, I’ll grant, but no more so than the Dollar. Whatever either “our” elitists or our “vast American unwashed masses” may generally concede, it is a lead-pipe cinch that the American retailer , large or small, wants equal access to the pocket books of both. The author does not say with which social class he associates. Is our culture unique in America? You bet it is. Is it singular? Not on your life. Myself, I was always under the impression that it was the Constitution that has held us all together, and the Declaration that freed us to do so.

The author is right when he says America was not based on collectivization. That would be very hard to support in a capitalist society. Maybe he was grasping for conglomeration and just misspoke. Have the imagined cultures been separate but equal? Equality has not been one of the perfect plays that made America’s highlight reel, but separation has. No, the author tells us our immigrant ancestors got Americanized. Really? No, they got segregated. This was not a phenomenon exclusive to minorities either. Even white Europeans ended up in close community with others just like themselves. (Please note I did not say “all” anywhere in this critique: generalizing is one of the things I’m stumping against!) Sometimes the segregation was voluntary, that is to say, naturally evolved; sometimes involuntary either by wondrously insidious ways or cruelly obvious, often tragic ones. But let’s play along here and say that the new immigrants and their funny foreign ways were fully absorbed into the American fabric and they embraced our land (which we shall call “This Land” is our land, “This Land” is your land…) and its white-inspired customs and traditions. As America absorbed “them,” they enriched “the broad base of our knowledge and experience.” Taken at face value, that’s actually a nice sentiment on the author’s part: recognizing that other cultures have something to offer. The sad reality is that the process of “enrichment” actually translated into exploitation in far too many cases. I can guarantee you this, that whoever allowed themselves to be “Americanized,” in however many numbers, with very few exceptions, when they got home, they spoke the language they grew up with. The question he asks is the wrong one. How then is it possible for these mega-retailers to ignore the Hispanic population?

Actually the retailers in question are adding Spanish signs for Hispanic people . And in our free market society, allowing corporate profits to maximize as a result of sound marketing practices does further the interests of our nation. As the economy grows, at least in principle, the nation, and its citizens, benefit. *Please note that I find it more than a bit disagreeable to side with Corporate America when it has so much for which to answer in the matter under discussion. Maybe I’ll take on Blue Sun another day.* (What’s in the national interest and what’s not could take up a few pages all on its own.) Aside from the distinction he fails to make between legal and illegal immigrants (I guess those of Hispanic origin in particular), he also ignores the migrant worker population in our midst. These are hard-working folk who work here legally , whom we freely employ , and embarrassingly cheaply, and go back to their native land when no longer needed. They have courage in a way many of us will never know: they are going to a foreign land with no resources at their disposal trying to improve their lot. Would it be such a bad thing to help them out a little bit? No one is forcing the author to learn Spanish, although he may find it enriching. How does this practice hurt anyone? (The phone is another matter altogether. Pressing “1” for English is an unconscionable affront and expenditure of calories. Many automated systems only require only the Press “2” for Espanol option, defaulting to English after a short wait.) /End critique paragraph two.

Continues at: http://www.fireflyfans.net/showblog.asp?b=5197

COMMENTS

POST YOUR COMMENTS

You must log in to post comments.

YOUR OPTIONS

THIS MONTH'S ENTRIES

Oct

November 2024

Dec