In the first, the Māori Language Commissioner argued that English never needed official recognition because it already dominates New Zealand society.
In the second, University of Waikato linguist Dr Julie Barbour went even further, describing English as a "predator language" that spread through conquest and colonialism, suggesting the legislation is "bizarre", unnecessary and simply reinforces English dominance.
Both arguments miss the point.
Nobody is claiming English is endangered. Nobody is suggesting English needs protection from extinction. The English Language Act does not remove a single right from te reo Māori or New Zealand Sign Language. Both remain official languages with all the legal protections they already enjoy.
The Act simply recognises, in law, what has always been true in practice: English is the common language of New Zealand.
If that recognition is supposedly meaningless, then an obvious question follows.
Why was it considered so important to legislate official status for te reo Māori in 1987?
You cannot have it both ways.
Either official recognition has legal and symbolic value, or it does not.
If official status matters for te reo Māori, then it cannot suddenly become pointless when Parliament recognises English as well.
The real objection appears to be something else entirely.
For decades English has been the only language without explicit statutory recognition, despite being the language used in Parliament, the courts, business, education, science, immigration, trade and everyday communication between New Zealanders of every ethnicity.
Correcting that anomaly is hardly revolutionary.
It simply places English alongside te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language as one of New Zealand's officially recognised languages.
Dr Barbour also describes English as a "predator language", associating it with military conquest and colonial expansion.
History is undeniably complex.
Empires spread languages. That happened with Latin, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, French and English. It is part of human history.
But languages themselves are not moral actors.
English did not invade countries. Governments and armies did.
Nor is English unique in absorbing words and influences from other cultures. In fact, its remarkable willingness to borrow vocabulary from hundreds of languages is one of the reasons it has become today's global language of science, aviation, medicine, commerce, diplomacy and the internet.
Calling English a "predator language" says more about modern political ideology than linguistics.
Dr Barbour rightly points out that early European settlers learned te reo Māori because they needed to communicate. That is an interesting historical fact.
But she overlooks the equally important reality that Māori rapidly learned English because they recognised its enormous practical value.
Throughout the nineteenth century many Māori communities actively established English-language schools, sought literacy in English and embraced opportunities that proficiency in English created.
This was not simply a story of coercion.
The Act simply recognises, in law, what has always been true in practice: English is the common language of New Zealand.
If that recognition is supposedly meaningless, then an obvious question follows.
Why was it considered so important to legislate official status for te reo Māori in 1987?
You cannot have it both ways.
Either official recognition has legal and symbolic value, or it does not.
If official status matters for te reo Māori, then it cannot suddenly become pointless when Parliament recognises English as well.
The real objection appears to be something else entirely.
For decades English has been the only language without explicit statutory recognition, despite being the language used in Parliament, the courts, business, education, science, immigration, trade and everyday communication between New Zealanders of every ethnicity.
Correcting that anomaly is hardly revolutionary.
It simply places English alongside te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language as one of New Zealand's officially recognised languages.
Dr Barbour also describes English as a "predator language", associating it with military conquest and colonial expansion.
History is undeniably complex.
Empires spread languages. That happened with Latin, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, French and English. It is part of human history.
But languages themselves are not moral actors.
English did not invade countries. Governments and armies did.
Nor is English unique in absorbing words and influences from other cultures. In fact, its remarkable willingness to borrow vocabulary from hundreds of languages is one of the reasons it has become today's global language of science, aviation, medicine, commerce, diplomacy and the internet.
Calling English a "predator language" says more about modern political ideology than linguistics.
Dr Barbour rightly points out that early European settlers learned te reo Māori because they needed to communicate. That is an interesting historical fact.
But she overlooks the equally important reality that Māori rapidly learned English because they recognised its enormous practical value.
Throughout the nineteenth century many Māori communities actively established English-language schools, sought literacy in English and embraced opportunities that proficiency in English created.
This was not simply a story of coercion.
It was also a story of adaptation, ambition and participation in a rapidly changing world.
Perhaps the most revealing part of both RNZ articles is the suggestion that recognising English somehow threatens multilingualism.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The English Language Act does not discourage anyone from learning te reo Māori.
It does not stop bilingual education.
It does not diminish Māori Language Week.
It does not alter funding for language revitalisation.
It does none of those things.
What it does do is acknowledge the obvious.
English is the language that enables almost every New Zealander—whether their family arrived 180 years ago or last year—to communicate with one another.
In a nation of more than 200 ethnic communities and well over 150 spoken languages, English is the bridge that connects us all.
Far from dividing New Zealand, it is the one language almost everyone shares.
Perhaps the most revealing part of both RNZ articles is the suggestion that recognising English somehow threatens multilingualism.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The English Language Act does not discourage anyone from learning te reo Māori.
It does not stop bilingual education.
It does not diminish Māori Language Week.
It does not alter funding for language revitalisation.
It does none of those things.
What it does do is acknowledge the obvious.
English is the language that enables almost every New Zealander—whether their family arrived 180 years ago or last year—to communicate with one another.
In a nation of more than 200 ethnic communities and well over 150 spoken languages, English is the bridge that connects us all.
Far from dividing New Zealand, it is the one language almost everyone shares.
The irony is striking.
Those opposing the Act insist that recognising English changes nothing.
If that is true, why the outrage?
If official recognition truly has no practical consequence, then Parliament has merely corrected an historical omission.
But if recognition carries symbolic importance—as supporters of te reo Māori have argued for nearly forty years—then English deserves exactly the same recognition.
Equality does not mean recognising only the languages some people favour.
It means applying the same principle consistently.
English does not require protection.
But neither should it be the only language denied the formal recognition that Parliament has chosen to give every other official language.
That is not privilege - It is simply equality before the law.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
Those opposing the Act insist that recognising English changes nothing.
If that is true, why the outrage?
If official recognition truly has no practical consequence, then Parliament has merely corrected an historical omission.
But if recognition carries symbolic importance—as supporters of te reo Māori have argued for nearly forty years—then English deserves exactly the same recognition.
Equality does not mean recognising only the languages some people favour.
It means applying the same principle consistently.
English does not require protection.
But neither should it be the only language denied the formal recognition that Parliament has chosen to give every other official language.
That is not privilege - It is simply equality before the law.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.