Machjo

You are right that French verb conjugation is more difficult than English verb conjugation, and yes, the French language has a much narrower range of tolerance for pronunciation than English, which has both advantages and disadvantages. However, English spelling is more difficult than French spelling, which is in its turn more difficult than other European spellings. Here are the facts on that: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1233 Also, when I'd switched from French-medium to English-medium instruction in highschool, I'd found my French to be superior to that of my teacher, so such a degree that they had to take me out of that lesson. So i wouldn't just blindly take a french-teacher's word for it, but rather hard research as in the link above. Both English and French are quite difficult to learn. But if you're going to claim 'by an order of magnitude', then you'll have to prove it. I've read research showing that success rates in English or French as a second language are both poor.

Though Japan, in spite of being among the most ethnically homogeneous societies in the world, has three major ethnic groups, including Koreans and Ainu.

So it wouldn't matter that I should gather up a large scale militia to overthrow the government, take it by force, ransack your town, confiscate your house, then make the laws. what would matter is the law afterwards? And we call ourselves civilized.

If there are any aboriginals here, I was wondering what your thoughts are on Canada. Do you identify as a Canadian? If not, then how do you identify yourself. If so, then do you consider it a simple legal identity (i.e. just a legal techincality, passport holder, etc.), or as a source of nationalist identity? What are your thoughts on the notion of 'two founding nations', aboriginal sovereignty, two official languages, etc. etc. etc. Though I've had aboriginal friends in the past, I've had few, so this could be quite enlightening to me.

Agreed.

That was through forceful acquisition.

Hey, watch it with the right-winger stuff. I often find myself agreeing with the right on many issues too. Not all right-wingers are the same. Personally, I'm not sure if I'm right or left, but to start insulting either just drags the value of the arguments down the gutter.

In Montreal, many. In La Malbaie, I'd seen one or two. One was in a shop owned by a known federalist. And I can't remember if I'd seen any other, but if so, it would certainly have been in a federal government office. It was just part of the local culture. The federal flag represented open support for federalism in La Malbaie, one of the basions of sovereigntism. In fact, the only teachers at the highschool I worked at at the time who knew English were the English-teachers.

And who was speaking of thuggery just a thread ago? hey, I like your philosophy? What's your address? Maybe I could gather a few thugs to take your house in a few days. After all, if we win the firefight, the hous is ours, right? Might makes right after all.

Why not ask them if they'd like to become independent like Monaco or San marino, an independent city state? If they want it, I'd be prepared to give it to them.

I agree that there is such a thing as excesive freedom. However, I elieve that at the moment we have too many rights and not enough freedom and responsibilities.

So when are you planning to give them their land back and go back to the UK? You won't have to pay them a cent from there.

There's a flaw in that logic. I'm a fisherman and you build a factory upstream from me, polliting the river and killing my livelyhood. I become dependent on you, and then you insist I must live up to your terms. Can you see the injustice in that? By the way, are you sure they're on welfare? I've met aboriginal entrepreneurs myself. nice stereotyping there.

I can agree with you overall, but it's still a fascinating subject. For instance, 1 July in Montreal is a common moving day. In La Malbaie, a Canadian flag is a sure symbol of federalism, and only one who wants to get noticed as such would be waving it. Overwise, all we see is white and blue flittering in the wind. My mother is a typical Franco Ontarian Catholic, my father a fairly typical British Anglican. I have fond memories of my childhood while de la tire Sainte Catherine, something totally foreign to English Canada. Even our national anthem is different, the French version dripping of Roman Catholicism. I can only imagine what the anthem is like in Inuktitut. What is their daily life like. What are their childhood memories. And for those who don't know our language, what information about us does get filtered to them? I've foud in French too that only a part of English Canadian culture really filters through. Same in reverse. Not saying anything bad, but a fscinating subject to know about. How much do we really know about one another.

Interesting. I'd be curious to see how such history education influences our perceptions of ourselves, our history, and who we are. I wonder if there have been any studies linking our historical worldview as presented in our history classes with how we perceive our Canadian identity as adults. I can imagine that an adult Inuit who speaks neither English nor French would have a radically different perception of what Canada is than a bilingual French-English speaker, or a unilingual French speaker, or a unilingual English speaker, or one who'se studied an endoterritorial view of history vs one who'd studied a eurocentric view of history, etc. I'm ure all these people would have radically different views of what Canada is. kind of like blind mice feeling an elephant. We're all blind mice touching a different part, none of us really understanding what Canada is.

Interesting. I remember a book years ago pointing to some cultural similariteis between the Aztecs and Inuits, as I'd mentioned above. It's a shame I don't have the book now since I can't remember the details, but it was fascinating. The Aztecs had a more accurate calendar than the Europeans!

I realise this. But the main point is, in Canadian history books, who is 'we'. Would it be appropriate to say that we, as Canadians, have a log history possibly dating back 10 thousand years or more, and that later we discovered the white man? Or would it be more accurate to say that 'our' Canadian history begins in Europe and that we eventually discovered the Americas and its inhabitants? Or is 'our' history something different? 'We' often talk of 'our' history and culture as if 'we' know what 'we' are talking about. But really, if 'our' history is European, then these two founding nations just got off the boat this morning. Not much history there, at least not on this land. If it's an endocentric history, then 'we' have lost most of our cuture and adopted a foreign one along with an exocentric view of 'ourselves'. So who are 'we' exactly, and what is 'Canada'?

I could imagine I'd be mighty pissed too to have a foreign national boundary cutting right through my national territory.

But how do we then deal with our international treaties with them? Of course one legal solution is to eliminate the 'us' vs. them issue by making 'us' them, and thus them us. This would essentially mean gradually adopting ever more native culture to replace the forign ones currently running our institutions.

Speak of the devil. Had I read further I would have saved myself a post above. Though I agree with the last statement in part, it's not always true. In some cases, especially in Eastern Canada, they are in fact international treaties between the British and the Indians, predating the British North America Act, and that causes alot of confusion too. Still legal documents, and thus still legitimate claims to be honoured legally. But who's really in charge? The British? Canada as its replacement on this soil? And what about the Indians? It was an international agreement, but later we took their land by force. So how do we interpret that legally? It just causes a mess in legal interpretation.

I remember in BC some of the landclaims cover mucho land. Major economic and policial implications. Problem is, often the claims are legally legitimate. To take an example, imagine I take the government to court, and essentially I'm in the right. But if the court should uphold it, it could cause major economic and policial upheaval. Naturally the court will consider that and will be afraid to carry though with it.

There's a flaw in that logic. I'm a fisherman and you build a factory upstream from me, polliting the river and killing my livelyhood. I become dependent on you, and then you insist I must live up to your terms. Can you see the injustice in that?

I agree that we can't spend our school days just studying history. My simple question was whether the conception of Canada in your history books were that 'we' are Europeans who'd simply discovered the America's and just got off the boat this morning so to speak, or if 'we' are a people dating back millennia and discovered the white man this morning so to speak. In BC, we're Europeans who'd discovered the America's. But I rememebr going to Catholic school in Ontario as a child before moving to BC. And I remember there that there was more emphasis on the Aboriginals, but can't remember the details too clearly though. I'm still not sure what to think of it, but it would seem important to me that we have a clear united definition of 'we-ness' nationwide, whatever it might be. Does our hisotry stem from Europe, of from the America's? In the end, it's really a matter of choice, depending on whether we think of ourselves as transplanted Europeans or immigrants to a new land willing to share in the history of this land.

I was wondering: who are we as Canadians? I can see at least two perspectives on this: 1. The territorial 'we' ()looking at Canada through the eyes of the events that occured on this land over millenia. 'We' likely crossed the Bearing Strait 30 to 50 thousand years ago. 'We' worked our way down the landmass of the Americas and founded great civilizations among the Aztecs and Mya, with some of the knowledge, be it mathematical, astronomical, or architectural, having spread as far North as the Canadian shield. I seem to remember a book I'd read a few years ago mentioning something about the astronomical alignment of the Inukchuk or something of the sort, but I'd have to look further into it. I remember that the Aztec calendar was more precisely solar than the European at the time, off by only a few seconds. And they had a few other technologies. Later, 'we' discovered the white man who later settled on this land, and grew in population and diversity, and the new 'we' gradually became aware of a wider world while at the same time being confronted with rapid cultural changes at home... The Eurocultural 'we' 'Our' history begins in Europe, and later 'we' discovered the America's and its inhabitants, who togerther formed the two founding nations of 'our' country. Of course there's also the universal 'we'. 'Our' history is the common history fo man's development of an ever advancing world civilization. I'm sure there are other conceptions of 'we'. But really, I'm starting to wonder, who are 'we' really?

I was studying in Victoria, BC. Maybe a provincial problem? As for how much emphasis on the distant and near past, that's another matter. But regardless of how much time we spend in the classroom studying our pre-contact history, as long as our history books teach it through european eyes (i.e. we learn European history until Contact, and then start learning about the America's after that), we will continue to be foreigners on our own land. If we want Canada to truly have its own identity, then any pre-contact history should be taught through the eyes of the land itself (i.e. our crossing over the Bearing strait 30 - 50 thousand years ago, the development of Aztec mathematics, astronomy, architecture and its influence on other cultures throughout the Americas, our eventual discovery of the white man, and eventually of the world, and our history since). I'm not First Nations myself by the way (well, a little blood, but no culture). However, it should be viewed as no more strange for a white child in the classroom reading about how 'we' discovered the white man as it should be for the Aboriginal reading how 'we' discovered the New World. It would simply require a redefinition of 'we'. For example, a converted Mulism would not find it strange in the least to discuss 'our' history and how 'we' started to grow in the Middle East, and about 'our' religion.Same with a Christian, etc. In fact, even if raised Christian, once converted, he'd find it quite natural to refer to Christian history as 'your' history, unless he thinks of it in an Abrahamic sense, in which case it's all 'our' history. Why could we not think of 'our' Canadian history in the same light. If born in Canada, then 'we' are converted North Americans, regardless of race, and as such share a common North American history dating back 30 to 50 thousand years, not an imported European history going back only a few hundred years, essentially uprooting our history and making it foreign to us. If we should think of it that way, then that would present our European roots as foreign, which would also increase respect for the First Nations' languages and cultures as part of 'our' own lost history as the people of this land, and possibly a desire to learn the local indigenous language among more people. This would also help to fight racism, since then our identity would be defined by the history of a landmass we share in common, as opposed to a foreign history and culture imposed upon the First Nations and Inuit. It's all a matter of the eyes through which we look at ourselves. Are we as Canadians, regardless of race, a people who share a common land mass having a human precense over millenia, or are we a people either immigrated or assimilated to foreing European cultures, with the Aboriginals as pesky pests who don't want to conform? In short, who are 'we'. What is 'we'. Who is included in this 'we', and when the the history of this' 'we' begin on the north American Continent? And who is included in this 'we'?