English: The Pseudo Official Language of the U.S.

 “In Plain English” seemed to be a largely a pointless call for the adoption of English as the official language because English, at least in my everyday experiences, already is the official language.

Krauthammer seems to feel that declaring English as the official language of the U.S. can be a defensive mechanism of sorts against the large, “monoclonal linguistic culture” that has been arising due to Mexican American immigrants. He states that this monoclonal culture is “far from hypothetical,” but I strongly disagree; in recent times, it seems as if the U.S. is attempting to curb migration from Mexico and other countries that send poorer immigrants or refugees to the U.S. Even if immigration from Latin America continues to increase rapidly, these immigrants are often of poorer backgrounds and lack the social power to establish Spanish as a regional or national language. In fact, Latin Americans are probably more likely to attempt to learn English in the hopes of landing better career opportunities. Also, it is unlikely that Spanish ever becomes the common language in California, Texas, Florida, and other states because these states also receive high numbers of immigration from Asia and other countries.

I also wonder whether the establishment of English as an official language would undermine the foreign language education in American schools. At least at Troy High, there is only a two-year requirement of learning foreign languages. Could this requirement possibly disappear? Although learning languages such as Spanish and French do seem pointless in the grand scheme of things, as we are unlikely to use them in real life, I think these languages not only expose us to other cultures but also help us develop a deeper understanding of American culture as a whole.

Ambiguities in Language

“Words Don't Mean What They Mean” discusses how people use linguistic strategies to hint at a meaning that is different from what they are explicitly saying. While there are examples in which speaking ambiguously or with figurative language can lead to are, these ambiguities are largely beneficial to maintaining strong relationships. If people were completely straightforward with their intentions, it can lead to disrespect between people. For example, after a loss, competitors, despite feeling dejected, shake hands with their opponents, heartily congratulating  them. While congratulating someone, you profusely praise them for their accomplishment even if you don’t completely mean it. However, after a heartbreaking loss, people will often feel reluctant to congratulate their opponent. Maybe there was a bad call or an unlucky play and the loser feels they deserved the win over the victor. Still, it would not be proper to reveal your true emotions to your opponent. You could be called a sore loser. The press would ruthlessly villainize you for disrespecting the opponent.

I also thought that “whimperatives” were fitting name for a surprisingly common linguistic device. “Whimperatives” can be a tactful way of persuading someone because they appear to offer a choice in the matter when there actually is no choice. Responding to whimperatives actually makes me feel more uncomfortable than responding to more direct orders. However, I think the person issuing the order often feels more comfortable with a whimperative, as it feels like you’re given the receiver a choice in the matter.

While people may use ambiguities and whimperatives when speaking with people they know personally, they often don’t hesitate to criticize those they don’t meet on a regular basis, like public figures. News outlets find it alright to criticize these people because they don’t have to “negotiate that relationship” with them.

Death: Natural or a Struggle?

I found the ending of “The Death of the Moth” to be rather eerie and unsettling. Woolf remarks that the moth appears to admit that “death is stronger than [it is].” Woolf presents death as a struggle, involving a “last protest” and “extraordinary efforts” to attempt to ward off death and stay alive.

This seems to be a very pessimistic view of death. I view death as a more natural occurrence, instead of a struggle. Death is just one of the many milestones in our life, and the fact that it is inevitable should not be a sign of danger. After all, eating our meals and going to sleep are also necessary and inevitable, and people often look forward to them. Yet, in our culture, people are rarely accepting of death, always demanding to know a specific reason or explanation for death. People also have many fears of death. However, any fears are of death are generally due to not knowing about what, if anything, lies after death.

Woolf seems to consider the moth writhing and suffering before its death to be a battle against death; however, I believe this struggle is more a part of life than death. Woolf has just witnessed the moth for a few moments. We have little idea about how the moth has struggled against predators and natural forces from before. Struggles are simply a part of life. They just happened to result in death in the moth’s case.

A striking feature of the moth’s death was that it occurred in isolation. Perhaps Woolf concluded that all death occurs in isolation, a rather depressing view of death. However, in the cases of most deaths of people, including Woolf’s death, the community has a major role in helping people manage their condition and be remembered for their contributions to the world. Death is no fight or struggle; it is simply natural.

A Modest Demand

It is a melancholy object to witness the students of Troy High School. The students run frantically from class to class, agonizing over every last homework problem. Their single moment of relaxation after a long, grinding day is lunch, when they often find themselves preoccupied with other homework to catch up on. The students compete against each other in a competition they simply cannot hope to win.

I will now humbly share my own suggestions, which I hope “ will not be liable to the least objection.” My very dear comrade has suggested that meditation is the cure to all problems. It calms the mind and eases everyone’s stress. Therefore, I propose that everyone just settles down in a quiet place – on a rock outside or in the back of the woods – detaching themselves from the world. We will live with peace. There will be no wars or conflict.

Once we meditate, we will simply drop all our extracurricular and academic commitments. You might wonder, how will we attend college? Ah, but we will no longer have the need to attend college with the newfound peace we have attained. And perhaps nothing of material value will get accomplished. No longer will we see the latest phone or laptop being released to the public. No one will try to solve the world’s greatest problems, such as cancer, world hunger, and pollution. But when we’re meditating that all will not matter: what matters is that we attain our own inner happiness.