Machjo

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090531/...ench_aboriginal But according to this article, our view of Canadian identity continues to be very exocentric, or more specifically, Eurocentric. When will we have a more endocentric view of our nation and its culture, recognizing that the peoples of this land discovered the Europeans, that it was a reciprocal discovery and not just 'us' discovering them and their land, which to them wasn't much of a discovery because it was never lost to them in the first place. Instead, they'd eventually discovered Europe. You see how exocentric our national identity is?

When I'd gone to school, we'd learnt European history up to the discovery of the Americas, and started to learn about North American history only from that point forwards. Our Canadian history courses were looked at totally through foreign eyes, from a European perspective looking in, thus why the migration of our history from Europe to Canada, as opposed to the history of the peoples inhabiting this landmass itself over millenia. I hope things have changed.

I don't think there's much denying that the way our history books are currently written ('We' discovered the new world, 'we' are based on two founding nations, etc. is very ethnically biassed). A more accurate perspective would be that the Europeans were discovered off 'our' shores, and two foreign powers established a new nation on 'our' land. As the alternative song goes: 'Oh Canada, our home on native land...'

It would seem that Nunavut is not the only territory that disagrees with Ignatieff: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090531/...ench_aboriginal

Agreed.

And what about Canada's First Nations' and Inuit languages? Why are they not among Canada's official languages? Are they less equal than either English or French? It would seem to me that they would be more a part of this land's identity than either English or French.

I myself have read research findings available in other languages, sometimes even available in a few languages, yet not yet available in English. I also remember reading an article a few years ago mentioning that a scientists is more likely to publish a positive finding in English, but not a negative one. So there's even the risk that scientific literatrue available in English is unbalanced.

And notice they can never give concrete examples for their assertions. My own father learnt French for a year through the military, courtesy of the taxpayer, and this after having heard my mom and I speak it throughout my childhood, and he still can't speak it well. Well, he can understand it though, but that only allows for one-way communication. And just look at StatsCan 2006. Very few Canadians on either side of the language divide learn their second official language well in spite of years of instruction. And then here they come on this forum pretending that spending all of this money to teach public servants French is so beneficial. Have they got any statistics to prove the rate of success of this investment? I've posted numbers on these forums before, yet have never seen numbers in return, only rhetoric.

Dearest creature in creation, Study English pronunciation. I will teach you in my verse Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse. I will keep you, Suzy, busy, Make your head with heat grow dizzy. Tear in eye, your dress will tear. So shall I! Oh hear my prayer. Just compare heart, beard, and heard, Dies and diet, lord and word, Sword and sward, retain and Britain. (Mind the latter, how it's written.) Now I surely will not plague you With such words as plaque and ague. But be careful how you speak: Say break and steak, but bleak and streak; Cloven, oven, how and low, Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe. Hear me say, devoid of trickery, Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore, Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles, Exiles, similes, and reviles; Scholar, vicar, and cigar, Solar, mica, war and far; One, anemone, Balmoral, Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel; Gertrude, German, wind and mind, Scene, Melpomene, mankind. Billet does not rhyme with ballet, Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet. Blood and flood are not like food, Nor is mould like should and would. Viscous, viscount, load and broad, Toward, to forward, to reward. And your pronunciation's OK When you correctly say croquet, Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve, Friend and fiend, alive and live. Ivy, privy, famous; clamour And enamour rhyme with hammer. River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb, Doll and roll and some and home. Stranger does not rhyme with anger, Neither does devour with clangour. Souls but foul, haunt but aunt, Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant, Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger, And then singer, ginger, linger, Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge, Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age. Query does not rhyme with very, Nor does fury sound like bury. Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth. Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath. Though the differences seem little, We say actual but victual. Refer does not rhyme with deafer. Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer. Mint, pint, senate and sedate; Dull, bull, and George ate late. Scenic, Arabic, Pacific, Science, conscience, scientific. Liberty, library, heave and heaven, Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven. We say hallowed, but allowed, People, leopard, towed, but vowed. Mark the differences, moreover, Between mover, cover, clover; Leeches, breeches, wise, precise, Chalice, but police and lice; Camel, constable, unstable, Principle, disciple, label. Petal, panel, and canal, Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal. Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair, Senator, spectator, mayor. Tour, but our and succour, four. Gas, alas, and Arkansas. Sea, idea, Korea, area, Psalm, Maria, but malaria. Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean. Doctrine, turpentine, marine. Compare alien with Italian, Dandelion and battalion. Sally with ally, yea, ye, Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key. Say aver, but ever, fever, Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver. Heron, granary, canary. Crevice and device and aerie. Face, but preface, not efface. Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass. Large, but target, gin, give, verging, Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging. Ear, but earn and wear and tear Do not rhyme with here but ere. Seven is right, but so is even, Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen, Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk, Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work. Pronunciation -- think of Psyche! Is a paling stout and spikey? Won't it make you lose your wits, Writing groats and saying grits? It's a dark abyss or tunnel: Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale, Islington and Isle of Wight, Housewife, verdict and indict. Finally, which rhymes with enough -- Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough? Hiccough has the sound of cup. My advice is to give up!!! -- Author Unknown

Had this land never allowed in foreigners, there would never have been "two founding nations". In fact, there would likely never have been a Canada, but many nations, including Cree, Algonquin, etc.

With an estimated 7-10% of the world's population beleived to be at least functional in English, I'd hardly call it universal.

So if I walk into a government office in Vancouver insisting that they service me in Inuktitu, what rights do you opine I should have?

Fair enough about Chinese. But I'm assuming you would agree that this standard should apply to all of Canada's indigenous languages? And as for French and English, no, the standard goes beyond that. I've knwen people in the military who'd had to undergo French language training even though their job simply didn't require it. We don't see the same service for Cree, Ojibwe, or Inuktitut now do we?

So now you agree with me that there are limits to rights. You said 'sufficient numbers', which suggests that you agree that efficiency is an important consideration, and the there must be a limit to rights. One lone speaker of Inuktitut in Vancouver should not have a democratic right to require the government to fly someone over from Nunavut at a moment's notice because someone in Vancouver wants his language services.

So what about French? Same standard? And waht about Chinese seeing that there are more Chinese in Vancouver than French speakers?

So what's your idea?

Sorry, I ruined the poll. I'll make another one.

So what are the government's duties responsibilities towards languages in your opinion?

Now guaranteeing services to those immigrants might be socialist, but allowing them in is libertarian.

Freer immigration would seem to be more of a libertarian than socialist concept, the idea being more freedom.

So, should a unilingual speaker of Inuktitu have a right to access to governmetn services in his language in Vancouver? Is it a democratic right?

We must remember though that the actions of individuals can affect other individuals too. Just to take an example, government services to guarantee too many rights to the individual cost money which could otherwise be used to help the less fortunate members of society. In this respect, giving people freedom but not necessarily rights (two ideas I distinguish clearly) can help take some of the burden off the shoulders of government to reduce spending and thus eventually reduce taxes which cold then be redirected towards charities, etc. With Official Bilingualism guaranteeing the right to use French in Vancouver or English in Quebec city would be one example of a policy that's too expensive for what it offers, and which thus drains the economy of economic resources that could otherwise have gone towards tax cuts so that we can give even more of our money to tharity than we do now. Same could appy to other areas, where the government gives too many rights. I agree we should have more freedoms, but not necessarily more rights. There is a difference between the two concepts, rights put a duty on the government to provide this or that service. Freedom merely puts a duty on the government to stepp out of your way, but not necessarily to cater to yor every whims.

There is a difference between a dictatorship and an elected government whose population supports order. Is it a democratic ssytem? To the degree that the government is elected, yes. But if the population has a strong belief in law and order, not entirely. So I guess it then becomes a kind of hybrid system, but certainly not a dictatatorial system, or at least not in the purest form.

Well, if we could make the system more efficient while still protecting rights, I'd be all for it. I'm not saying get rid of the appeals process, but is there ay way to streamline it? maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is that if there is such a way, that alone would not be anti-democratic if it still guarantees an appeals process. The US and Japan continue to have the death penalty I believe. As for unions, fine, give them their freedom to exist and strike. But why not give a more efficient alternative? Why not give workers a vote on Boards of Directors, or allow for a voluntary arbitration process the decision of which would be binding or other alternatives to striking that would not cause production to suffer. Would giving them more voting rights on the boar od directors or giving them alternative options be all that bad if it can maintain production? Perhaps I shold clarify that I am not a democrat. I do believe in an elected process, but also believe stongly in order. Yes, that is a point shared by fascists too. Fair enough. But one advantage with order and efficiency is that it increases productivity and reduces waste and though that provides more wealth that can go towards heloing the less fortunate members of society. Also, I subscribe philosophically to the idea of human duties rather than rights. I have no right to help from society, but have a duty to help it, and so give some of my time and money to charity on that basis. If I should receive a service, it is out of someone else's kindness, not because I have a right to it. If I give to charity, it is out of a sense of duty on my part. In that respect, it's only natural that I'll have a very different view of society from a society that emphasizes rights over duties.

You're absolutely correct, and that's not what I was referring to. Certainly exceptins exist. Bad example. A more apt one would be where even non-medical positions in the government required a medical degree, and that various positions would be labeled medical even when they are not, and that I'd have to undergo medical training even though my position has nothing to do with it. I've knowm people in the military who had to undergo language training. Few come out successful. Waste of money. I'd love to see the statistiques on it.