4
te og demokratiske samfund. Universal-
begreber som frihed og retfserdighed ud-
basunertes som af amerikansk oprindelse.
Nordmsend og andre oplyste indvandrere
maatte uvilkaarlig smile ad de naive, men
tilsyneladende for friheden begeistrede
indf0dtes paastande. Begeistringen var
for en god sag, og det var bedre at vise sig
godmodig og overbaerende end at stille sig
i kamplysten Opposition.
Hvilken forandring er ikke skeet paa
nogen faa aar ? Nu h0res der lidet om
ret og retfserdighed for alle. Men meget
h0res om “the damned foreigners” og alt
deres väesen og i sserdeleshed da deres
aviser i de sprog de bedst kan forstaa. Den
saakaldte “frem.medsprog”-presse for-
d0mmes som om den var en pest for lan
det og et djsevelens verk.
Alle fremmedf0dte og alle aviser, som
benytter andre sprog end det engelske,
kjsemmes over en kam. De beskyldes for
at vsere “r0de”, de beskyldes for at staa i
ledtog med radikale ophidsere mod det be-
staaende samfund og forfatningen, de be
skyldes for at ha bragt med sig fra andre
lande samfundsfarlige lseresaetninger, de
beskyldes for at vaere baade “t0rre” og
“vaade” paa en og samme tid og derved
at foraarsage aengstelse blandt dem, som
arbeider for drikkeondets udryddelse, og
for den uro, som eksisterer blandt arbei-
derne som f01ge af, at de ikke faar nyde
sin regelmaessige 01 og dram. F0r var det
saa, at Republikanerne altid beskyldte
Demokraterne for de “daarlige tider” i
landet, og hvis farmernes avling ikke slog
til deres forhaabninger, saa var det det
politiske parti, der var ved magten, som
fik skylden. Det er leit, at vi har levet
saa laenge i vildfarelse, og at sandheden
saa sent er kommet frem, men efter det
gamle princip “bedre sent end aldrig” vil
nok de fremmedf0dte herefter faa skylden
for altsammen.
Det er mildest talt skammelig at tserike
paa, at enkelte baade Nordmsend og
Svensker er faldt for fristelsen og tilladt
sig at bli rasende kraftpatrioters haand-
gangne msend i dette meningsl0se angreb
paa deres eget og andre indvandreres
morsmaal. Hvilken ufornuft, t hvilken
uvidenhed, hvilken mangel paa forstaaelse
af vaerdier, hvilken usseldom!
Det virker forfriskende at h0re en ind-
f0dt Amerikaners mening om fremmed
sprogpressen og dens mission blandt vore
indvandrede folkeslag. Det b0r erindres
at ikke alle Amerikanere er Anglo-Ameri-
kanere, tiltrods for at det sprog, som er
blit landets sprog, oprindelig stammer fra
England. Det engelske sprog, som idag
tales i Amerika, er ikke det samme som
det, der tales i England. St0rre og st0rre
vil forskj eilen bli efter som udviklingen
skrider frem. Danskerne fors0gte i sin tid
med sit sprog at fordanske Norge. Det
gik ikke. Ligesaa lidet vil det nytte til-
bederne af alt britisk at “forengelske”
Amerika.
De indvandrede har ret til at tale sit
morsmaal og ha sine aviser i sit eget
sprog. Retten er medf0dt, og den kan
ingen ta fra dem.
Mr. Fred Clayton Butler, der er chef for
amerikaniseringsvirksomheden i Indrede-
partementets Bureau of Education, Wash
ington, D. C., skriver blandt andet om
fremmedsprogpressen i et af Departemen-
tets nylig udgivne flyveskrifter, Bulletin
1919, No. 77, f01gende:
“Fremmedsprogpressen er et stört og
kräftig middel til sine Iseseres oplysning.
Der findes vistnok fiere millioner menne-
sker her i landet som tilfredsstillende kun
g
|||||
M
IMB
THE NORTHMAN
kan lsese deres eget sprog. At 0delaegge
dette, det eneste middel hvorigjennem vi
bar anledning at bringe frem vore tanker
for disse mennesker, vilde vsere daarskab.
En smule eftertanke vil vise, hvor vanske-
lig det vilde vsere, at forbyde udgivelsen af
aviser og tidsskrifter i fremmede sprog.
Det vilde da bli n0dvendig at forbyde ind-
f0rselen af b0ger og alt andet, som ikke
var trykt paa engelsk. Mange af verdens
st0rste mesterverker vilde bli banlyst fra
vort land. Vore videnskabsmsend og
kunstnere vilde bli rene provinsmennesker
og isoleret fra verden. Det er 0rkesl0st at
tale om, at noget saadant kunde ske i
Amerika”.
Ja mon det? Vi faar se hvordan det
gaar med loven i Oregon og de andre an
greb paa tale og pressefriheden baade i og
udenfor kongressen i Washington.
Mr. Butlers udtalelser vidner ialfald om
forstaaelse og sund fornuft. Naar sagen
vedkommer de indvandrede er dette i dis
se tider et sjeldent fsenomen. Derfor
skal han nsevnes. Men krigens efterd0n-
ninger, dumhed, uvidenhed, daarskab,
selvgodhed, trangsynthed og begeistret
kraftpatriotisme f01es fremdeles kraftig.
H. SUNDBY-HANSEN.
American Red Cross.
Bureau of Foreign Language Information Service.
—■Norwegian Section
No. 589
THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE PRESS.
In a cpuntry like the United States
where the immigrated part of the inhabi
tants make up so great a proportion of the
population that the figures reach into
several millions, the means of expression
in other languages than English is abso
lutely necessary. Among the immigrants
of the first generation there is a contin
uousness of several millions who are not
capable of speaking the English language
and who can read and write satisfactorily
only in their mother tongue. These people
are, broadly speaking, good and just folk
who wish to live in peace, labor, build
their homes, and educate their children to
be good American citizens.
It is a breach in American conception of
social order and justice to “make racial
distinctions.” Why, then, separate the
foreign-born from the others? Who has
made this breach ? Surely not the . immi
grant. If you, for instance, regard the
Norwegian, Swedish and Danish part of
our population, we find that they came to
this country, for the greater part, with
the best intentions, and a clearly defined
sense of justice.
They had great hopes. They were en
thused over America—its great economic
possibilities, its free constitution, its com
mon welfare and the presumed absence of
the prejudices that existed here.
Early and late it was piped into their
ears that this is Liberty’s Land; this is
the temple of justice. Nobody would
ask what you w e r e—only what sort of a
man or woman you are. Prejudice
against all the old should be banished from
this free, enlightened and Democratic
sodality. The universal conception of
liberty and justice was trumpeted as of
American origin.
Norwegian and other intelligent im
migrants necessarily had to smile at the
naive, but apparent enthusiasm of the na
tive born’s conception of liberty. The en
thusiasm was for a good cause, and it was
better to appear generous and tolerant,
than to assume a belligerent attitude.
What a change has taken place in only
May 13, 1920
a few years! Now very little is heard
about right and justice for all. But much
is heard about the ‘damned foreigners”
and all their activities, and especially
their publications in the language they can
best understand. The so-called “foreign
language” press is condemned as if it was
a pest to the country and the work of the
devil.
All the foreign-born and all papers that
are using languages other than the English
are raked with one comb. They are accused
of being “red.” They are accused of be
ing in league with the radicals making
inflammatory utterances against the
existing social order and constitution.
They are accused of having brought with
them from the old countries teachings
dangerous to society. They are accused
of being both “dry” and “wet” at one and
the same time, and thereby causing
anxiety among those who labor for the
abolition of the evil of intemperance, and
for the unrest that exists among the labor
ing element as a result of their not being
able to enjoy the customary dram or
draught of beer. Formerly it was so that
the Republicans always accused the Demo
crats of being responsible for the “hard
times” in the country, and if the farmer's
crop did not come up to expectations, then
it was the political party in power that
received the blame. It is too bad that we
have so long dwelt in error and that the
truth has so recently become known, but
according to the old proverb, “better late
than never,” the . foreign-born will no
doubt hereafter get the blame for all.
It is, mildly speaking, shameful to think
that some, both Norwegians and Swedes,
have fallen to the temptation and
allowed themselves to become willing
helpers of the raving, pervert-patriots, in
this meaningless attack on their own, and
other immigrants’ mother tongues. How
monstrous!
What ignorance!
What
lack of conception of values! What nig
gardliness !
It is refreshing to hear the native born
American copception of the foreign lan
guage press and its mission among the
immigrated races. It must be remem
bered that not all Americans are Anglo-
Americans in spite of the fact that the
language, that has become the country’s
language, originated in England. The Eng
lish language that is today spoken in
America is not the same as that spoken in
England. Greater and greater will the
difference be as our development pro
gresses. The Danes in their time through
their language tried to “Danacize” Nor
way. That did not go. No more will it
profit the worshippers of all things British
to attempt to “Anglicize” America.
The immigrant has a right to speak his
mother tongue and to have his newspapers
in his own language. This is a birthright,
and no one can take it from them.
Mr. Fred Clayton Butler, who is chief of
Americanization activities of the Bureau
of Education, Department of the Interior,
Washington, D. C. writes among other
things in one of the department’s recently
issued bulletins. 1919, No. 77, as follows:
“The foreign language press is a great
and strong medium for the general en
lightenment of its readers. There is
found probably several million people in
this country who can satisfactorily read
only their own language. To destroy this,
the only medium through which we have
opportunity to bring forth our thoughts
to these people would be folly. A little