The year 1492 was monumental for Spain, marking changes not just socially and politically but linguistically as well. That same year, Christopher Columbus set sail, activating monumental transformations within both Spain and the Americas. Notably, it also saw the fall of the Nasrid Kingdom of Granada, which concluded centuries of Muslim rule. Following this significant change, the Edict of Expulsion was introduced, compelling tens of thousands of Jews to abandon their homeland as Spain increasingly prioritized notions of ‘blood purity’.
Yet, the same year contained another event seldom discussed, yet equally pivotal to Spain's imperial ambitions: the publication of Antonio de Nebrija's book, “Gramática de la lengua castellana.” This work represented the first comprehensive grammar of the Spanish language aimed at standardizing Castilian Spanish and reinforcing its status over various regional and minority languages. Nebrija dedicated the work to Queen Isabella I, stating, "Siempre la lengua fue compañera del imperio," which translates to “Language has always been a companion of empire.” His sentiment highlights the political undertones associated with language, which transcended mere communication and veered toward dominance and control.
Fast forward to March 1, 2025, when another language-centric decree transpired: the declaration of English as the official language of the United States. The executive order asserted, “it is in America’s best interest for the federal government to designate one — and only one — official language.” Touted as a measure to streamline communication, this rhetoric mirrors historical narratives from Spain’s past, echoing linguistic nationalism's darker undertones. By implementing English-only policies, the U.S. similarly risks fostering exclusion rather than unity, paralleling the historical use of language to create barriers around identity.
Language has frequently been wielded as a tool for exclusion, driven by the ideological framework of dominant groups seeking to shape national identity. There’s truth to the assertion made by the German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” When policies strangle the linguistic diversity existing within populations – about 68 million residents of the U.S. speak languages other than English – the fabric of societal communication frays, creating chasms between communities.
According to projections from the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2050, the nation is anticipated to house the largest population of Spanish speakers globally – around 138 million. Yet, this incredible potential is often undermined by policies insisting on linguistic uniformity. The move to favor one language directly contradicts the reality of America’s multicultural society and its rich, multilingual heritage.
On the political front, recent word bans introduced by President Trump, targeting terms associated with ‘wokeness’ – including 'clean energy', 'racial identity', and even 'women' – are drawn from the same playbook intent on controlling language and, by extension, thought. Initially, on his first day as president, Trump signed the executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” where he declared, "Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society." This rhetoric stands starkly opposed to actions taken, molded by viral responses to shifting social paradigms.
Nigel Farage's comments during his CPAC speech highlight similar themes, stating, “We should be able to say whatever the hell we want.” Yet, both Trump's and Farage’s appeals to free speech seem to paradoxically beseech freedom through exclusion — of narrative and identity. De facto removal of certain terms from federal government documents results not just in the suppression of language but the potential erasure of identity itself.
Historically, efforts to suppress native languages have occurred globally, particularly during imperial times. Government policies have often sought to erase or minimize the significance of minority languages; limiting the range of what can be said congeals power structures and stifles voices. Drawing from George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” where language censorship epitomizes control through its fictional Newspeak, we see the message echoing through history: "Don’t you see the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?”
Trump’s recent renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America exemplifies this push toward controlling national language. White House officials have insisted on this ‘correct’ naming, warranting expulsion threats for those press agencies which fail to comply. Such practices invoke Orwellian overtones as citizens are coerced to peddle narratives contriving alternate realities contrary to public perception.
Limiting language signifies more than mere word restrictions; it potentially leads to eroding identities and constraining human rights. How can meaningful discussion of individual experiences occur without the language to articulate those ideas? The selective endorsement of language cultivates environments where communication shrinks, undermining the very essence of collective society. This systemic control invigorates discussions surrounding racism, discriminatory practices, and visibility — or lack thereof — for marginalized communities.
The overarching historical lesson remains clear: language is powerful. Whether through decrees from centuries past, the imposition of grammatical structures, or contemporary government policies, it shapes the narrative of who we are as a society. The answer, perhaps, lies not within linguistic homogeneity but acceptance of multilingualism and recognition of the diverse personalities and identities interwoven within the nation's fabric. True empowerment rests on the shoulders of those who embrace diversity over division, paving the path toward greater inclusion.
