Running head: Language
“Cada pueblo lleva en su lengua el alma de su raza”: Language and Identity in Puerto Rico
Zayra E. Marrero Burgos
University of Puerto Rico at Cayey
“Cada pueblo lleva en su lengua el alma de su raza”: Language and Identity in Puerto Rico
July 25, 1898: Puerto Rico is invaded and colonized… again. Even though we were indirectly at war with the invader, the occupation was not met with any arms, violence, nor resistance. Instead, it was met with a huge reception. Puerto Rico begins a state of political uncertainty that after 108 years has not yet been resolved. Ever since its discovery 513 years ago, Puerto Rico has been a colony, making her the last and oldest one in the modern world. This ambiguous state has shaped our traditions, language, customs, and mostly our identity.
The invading nation attempted to impose their “official language”, with the belief that in this way they were imposing the mind-frame and customs of the dominating group. It’s in that moment that Spanish language became like a safety shield, in that it preserved the unity of the island in the face of tyranny. This imposition not only caused resentment, but mostly aversion to the American language policies to be enforced in the island, making Puerto Ricans hold on to their language, that became their identity marker. English language was used as means of subordination, a conquest and power tool, while Spanish language, on the contrary, represented identity, sense of belonging; and at the same time represented what was inferior and hillbilly.
If we are to understand this aversion to English language and the relationship between language and identity, we must explore what happened in the years following the invasion.
The initial acceptance of the English language in the government and the schools was because people thought that the military government was a transitional form of governance that would eventually lead to Puerto Rico’s annexation and greater local autonomy that would restore Spanish as the language of government. The first Commissioner of Education, Dr. Martin Brumbaugh, faced the challenge of educating a population that had an 80% rate of illiteracy and only 8% of the school aged children attended school (Montilla, 1971). Also, the military government report indicated that the Puerto Ricans did not speak pure Spanish but rather a “patois… with no literature and little value as intellectual medium” fostering the belief that it would be just as easy to educate the people in English as it would be educate them in Spanish (Montilla 1971). The U.S occupying government devalued the Puerto Rican dialect of Spanish as means of justifying English language policy in the schools. Thus, from 1905 through 1917, English was the medium of instruction in all grades and Spanish was to be taught as a separate subject, as if it were a second language. Aida Negron de Montilla’s (1971) investigation of seven politically appointed Commissioners of Education during the first decades of the 20th Century shows that this language policy was based not on pedagogical principles but rather represented a push from Washington D.C and U.S political appointees to promote Americanization and the English language as part of an agenda to assimilate Puerto Ricans, despite the high cost of providing inferior educational opportunities to students.
The schools played a crucial part in the Americanization of the Island. Several changes were done including: substitution (and preference) of local textbooks for foreign books, which reflected the lifestyle of the North American and the employment of American professors to teach in English at the schools, where the kids barely knew Spanish. These teachers were to diffuse an assimilation feeling and suppress any feeling of independence. The English language was installed as a requisite in order to teach. (Montilla 1990)
One of the first actions of overt resistance displayed by Puerto Ricans occurred as early as 1909, rural elementary school children refused to attend classes unless they were taught in Spanish. In response, these kids were expelled from school. This brought the institution of military drills for children to have a more disciplined attitude towards their Americanized education.
The real resistance began in the 1930’s with Pedro Albizu Campos’s nationalist speeches, where he repeatedly spoke out against the presence of English as the language of instruction in public schools saying that English “desorienta y embrutece a nuestra juventud, en grave perjuicio de nuestra personalidad cultural” (disorients and makes brutish of our youth, gravely harming our cultural personality) (Acosta 2000) Albizu’s numerous references to the imposition of English in Puerto Rico classified the English language as a threat to cultural and national identity and firmly placed Spanish as an integral element of the founding myth that defined Puerto Rican nationhood. Albizu feared cultural imperialism as represented by replacing Spanish with English in the schools was detrimental not only to the learning process, but to the local concept of national identity. The fear of having children identify with the American culture instead of their mother culture was latent.
The intellectuals of the decade also criticized the language policy that the States was imposing in the country. They attacked the English language instruction in schools and called for Spanish language instruction for the intellectual and educational development of students and the maintenance of a unique Puerto Rican culture. The image that they often recall is the image of “stuttering individuals”, implying that not only culture would be impacted, but also the cognitive process of children. (García-Kuenzli 1969)
War on language debate was declared in the 1940’s, when a series of events triggered the public resistance to English language. In February 1943, the Chávez Committee, chaired by New Mexico senator Dennis Chávez, conducted hearings in Puerto Rico to investigate social and economic conditions on the Island. The original focus of this committee somehow turned to the teaching of English in public schools. The member of the committee favored English instruction at any cost in sharp contrast with the testimony by Puerto Rican educators that almost uniformly advocated establishing Spanish as the medium of education as the most effective means of teaching English. The Commissioner of Education at the time, Jose Gallardo, testified before the committee arguing that the Puerto Rican public school system faced numerous obstacles in English language instruction. He also explained the difficulties that the Department of Instruction was having in getting children to attend school and finishing, at least, elemental grades. (“Gallardo discute ante el Comité Chávez el problema educativo”. February 18, 1943. El mundo)
This testimony caused the committee to threat the Island saying that we should not expect economic help from the United States if Puerto Ricans did not demonstrate their loyalty to the United States by making an effort to learn English and creating the opportunity for children to learn English through participation in the public school system. (“Giró sobre el inglés vista del Comité Chávez”. February 20, 1943. El mundo)
Teachers went and testified before the committee arguing the same things that Gallardo and many others. But, their claims went further. They said that public school education suffered at the expense of teaching English because of the enormous amount of time and resources expended, when the most critical issue was how to make easier for kids to go to school. They did not oppose to the English language, but rather meeting student’s educational needs, that involved learning their mother language well in order to teach the other.
The reaction of the committee was largely negative; they concluded that Puerto Rican educators had failed to teach English in their 45 years as a U.S. possession and that Puerto Rico would never become a state if its people did not learn English and acquire American cultural ideals as a proof of their loyalty to the United States. They were disappointed with the local sentiment that called for Spanish language instruction; despite it was backed by widely accepted educational theory. (“Giró sobre el inglés vista del Comité Chávez”. February 20, 1943. El mundo)
Puerto Ricans were outraged by the committee disregard for testimony by local educators that consistently favored Spanish language instruction in the public schools. The president of the University of Puerto Rico, Jaime Benítez, wrote a letter that was published in El mundo that same February. He emphasized that the language was not a political issue, but it would become one if Spanish medium instruction were prohibited in the classroom. Benítez acknowledged the political implications of U.S mandated language policy. His statement suggests that if Puerto Ricans had local autonomy over the language issue, it would strictly be an issue of pedagogy, but if the Unites States continued to deny local agency in language policy, Puerto Ricans would wage fierce political battle. Later, it would be argued that the Unites States had monolingual Spanish speaking soldiers in the Southwest, demonstrating that English was unnecessary for proving loyalty to the armed forces because it was possible to defend the nation without speaking English.(“Rector Benítez dice no es asunto político el idioma”. 22 de febrero de 1943. El Mundo)
Also the students of the time drew up declaration that sharply criticized the Chávez committee that the committee’s remarks constituted incomprehension, ignorance, and an anachronistic imperialist spirit, and that constitute an unsolicited offense to our people. (“Consejo de estudiantes discute asunto del idioma”. 1 de marzo de 1943. El mundo)
In 1945, the legislature passed Law Number 51, a.k.a “Proyecto del Idioma”) that designated Spanish as the language of instruction in public schools. This law was vetoed by Gov. Rexford Tugwell, interim Governor Manuel Perez, and President Harry Truman. Students from the University of Puerto Rico began organizing an Island wide protest to Truman’s veto of the language bill and express their support of designating Spanish the language of instruction across all educational levels, arguing that the worst damage that the U.S. government had done in Puerto Rico had been the destruction of Spanish. Denouncing Tugwell’s and Truman’s vetoes and asserting that Puerto Ricans has the right to receive an education in their vernacular and not in a foreign language. Arguments against English in the schools often referred to it as a foreign language as opposed to a second language. This reflects both pedagogical reasoning that language policy needed to recognize that English was not the vernacular on the Island and textbooks and methodology needed to reflect the reality of the situation. Defining English as a foreign language also served to politically and culturally separate Puerto Rico from the United States. (“Graduados UPR condenan veto a bill de idioma” November 9, 1946. El mundo)
The Americanization campaign was not successful. Puerto
Ricans were resisting the English Language; the Americans that
were brought to the Island to govern the Island did not want to
learn Spanish. Kids were not going to school, and if they went,
they were on the verge of failure. The conditions in Puerto Rico
were deplorable. During these years, Puerto Rico had grown into a
little more than a plantation. The people desperately held onto
their language and sense of identity.
The English language oppression cemented the identification of Spanish as part of Puerto Rican identity. Identity based on language is dynamic due to ever-changing language policy, shifting attitudes and loyalties, and historical situations that dictate social control or domination. Language, right now, is a defining element of national identity that makes us Puerto Ricans in a cultural sense, while being citizens of the United States in a political sense. Language contributes to the distinction between us (Puerto Ricans) and them (Americans) which in turn shapes our national identity. Puerto Ricans have a complex relationship with the English language because of its perceived threat to our identity and also to the status of the Spanish language.
We cannot ignore the influence of English on the Puerto Rican
population at present day which reaches the Island via numerous
sources such as: business, education, cable television, print
media, music, movies, the internet, etc. The persistent presence
of English affects the entire population, from monolingual
housewives that must deal with English labeling when grocery
shopping to college students faced with the challenge of taking
classes that are taught in Spanish with textbooks in English.
Today, English is used as a useful tool for success in education,
politics, and business and its presence as a secondary language is
generally accepted and deemed to be desirable. The English
language seems to have achieved a greater level of acceptance
during this period of passive U.S. influence than it achieved
during the years of mandatory language instruction in the public
schools in the first half of the twentieth century.
The average Puerto Rican is used to live in a society that’s submerged in a dual language culture. To live between languages is an everyday thing. Even though the “Americanization” of Puerto Rico is not a political goal since the 1940’s, the process is still felt on the Island; maybe not through language, but through music, T.V, film, literature, among others. In contrast with the 30’s and 40’s, today most Puerto Ricans embrace the American language for diverse reasons.
One of the strongest reasons, in my opinion, is survival. We have been accustomed to the political, cultural, social, and mostly economic patronage of the metropolis. A lot of people, in one way or the other, do not think nor imagine a future without the protection of the United States. They assimilate language, way of life, and even mannerisms that, for them, may result in not only economical benefits, but in social standing, maybe showing loyalty that the Americans have always asked from us. Most of the time, this type of person, renounces his/ her language and nationality, and calls him/herself “American”, maybe alluding to a citizenship that, for them, define who they are.
Others accept this reality and live conscious of the cultural influence of the U.S in our Island. These people know and embrace the challenge that is to keep and defend an official language (that changes every four years or less), and most of all they know the hardships of protecting and rescuing the so-called Puerto Rican identity from the imminent assimilation that haunts us. “We are living in a key moment in our history”, Javier Colón Morera says in his article “Una noche para nuestra bandera”, “in which Puerto Ricans manifest in a firm and spontaneous way our admiration and respect for the national symbols”. As if suddenly we found out who we are.
REFERENCES:
Books:
Acosta, I. (2000) La palabra como delito: Los discursos por los que condenaron a Pedro Albizu Campos”. San Juan: Editorial Cultural
García-Kuenzli, P. (1969).El proceso de americanización en Puerto Rico, un problema ético. San Juan: Editorial Análisis
García Passalacqua, J.M. (2001).Afirmación nacional: verdadera historia de los Puertorriqueños. San Juan: Editorial Cultural.
Lopez Baralt, J. (1999). The policy of the United States towards its territories with special reference to Puerto Rico. San Juan: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Negron de Montilla, A. (1971). Americanization in Puerto Rico and the Public School System 1900-1930. Río Piedras: Editorial Edil.
Negron de Montilla, A. (1990). La americanización de Puerto Rico y el sistema de instrucción publica 1900-1930. Rio Piedras: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Pabón, C. (2002) Nación Post-Mortem: ensayos sobre los tiempos de insoportable ambigüedad. San Juan: Callejón.
Trias Monje, J. (1999). Puerto Rico: Las penas de la colonia más antigua del mundo. San Juan: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico
Newspapers:
“Gallardo discute ante el Comité Chávez el problema educativo”. (1943, February 18). El mundo.
“Giró sobre el inglés vista del Comité Chávez”. (1943, February 20) El mundo, pp.2
“Rector Benítez dice no es asunto político el idioma”. (1943, February 22). El Mundo, pp. 1
“Consejo de estudiantes discute asunto del idioma”. (1943, March 1). El mundo, pp.4
“ Graduados UPR condenan vetoa hill de idioma” (1946, November 9). El mundo. pp.5
