Machjo
-
Posts
4,271 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Machjo
-
-
I realise that speaking about second-language teaching policy might be boring, cetainly not the most exciting topic in town. But it's basic, it's elementary. We can't even speak to one another. how about this for a vision, that we'll commit to reforming our language policies to ensure that the next generation of Canadians will share a common language. It can be a common second language, that's fine. But at least a common language of come kind. It's time, after over a century, that we move beyond being strangers to one another.
-
Also, how is it that politicians always get lost in these exciting and glamorous grand schemes, but always forget the boring but essential basics?
Just to take an example. In 2006, Statistics Canada showed that only 15% of Canadians knew both official languages. In Quebec, 45% knew English. In Nunavut, 8% knew neither English nor French!
You can build all the fancy stuff you want, but if after over a century of existence this country has not even been able to write an efficient second-language teaching policy to ensure a common language for all Canadians, how in the world can we expect this nation to still exist next century? According to one article on the Statistics Canada website that I was reading recently, among the young, there has been little improvement in the rate of official bilingualism. And this in spite of some estimates that we are spendig aobut 16 billion dollars a year of official bilingualism!
Honestly, we're talking about building this and that when we can even talk to each other. The nation is segregated and balkanized, unless of course you know a few languages.
-
According to Statistics Canada in 2006, only about 15% of Canadians know both of Canada's official languages. In Quebec, only about 45% know English. In Nunavut, about 8% of the population know neither English nor French. Clearly this language barrier, still present over a century after the birth of our nation, makes the unity of our nation fragile indeed. Could language planning bridge Canada's language divide? First we'll look at instances of language and script planning in other countries around the world and how successful they've proven to be; then we'll look at whether they could be implemented in Canada to bridge the language dividehere.
Asia is no stragner to language planning.
Following the establishment of the Republic of Turkey and a switch to the Roman script for the Turkish language, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk established the Turkish Language Association (TDK) in 1932. One of the tasks of the Association was to initiate a language reform to replace loanwords of Arabic and Persian origin with Turkish equivalents derived either from Old Turkish or from a combination of Turkish roots. Turkish is possibly among the easiest modern ethnic languages in the world to learn owing to its comparatively logical structure in relation to other ethnic languages.
Of the 250 million speakers of Bahasa Indonesia (officialized in 1949) worldwide, only about 17 million are native speakers. The reason for this is that Bahasa Indonesia is a naturalistic planned language. A naturalistic planned language is a language created or revised to be easy to learn at a passive level by speakers of the languages on which it is based. Though Indonesia has over 300 ethnic languages, nearly all Indonesians can speak Bahasa Indonesia. It is the official language of the nation and taught in schools nationwide. Like Turkish, it is also comparatively easy to learn owing to its comparatively logical structure.
Asia is no stranger to script planning either. On 9 October, 1446 (now a national holiday in South Korea), King Saejong the Great published the Hunmin Jeong-eum ("The Proper Sounds for the Education of the People"). In it, he described the new Korean script, Hangul, which was created by the scholars of the Hall of Worthies a few years earlier.The purpose of this script, the King explained in his book, was to provide literacy for the common people, for whom the Chinese script was out of reach. Today, Korea has among the highest literacy rates in the world.
Though script planning seems to be much more common to Asia, language planning has proven to be just as common in Europe, albeit at a less official level.
In 1993, the Ministry of Instruction of Italy added Esperanto, a language, though mainly based on European roots, designed to be easy to learn by just about anybody, to its list of languages from which public schools could choose to teach their pupils to fulfil their second-language requirements for graduation.
In 2000, Hungary and Poland followed suit; in 2001, Croatia; and in 2005, the UK. Some US schools teach it too. Some Australian schools now teach it experimentally.
Considering how foreign countries have understood the importance of a common language to promote unity between peoples, how is it that Canada's ministries of Education have lagged so far behind in this respect? Though, like other countries, we recognize that learning a second language is not easy, we have, unlike other countries, failed to adopt, revise, or create a first or second-language of our own that could be more easily learnt by pupils as an auxiliary language that could serve as a basis for future Canadian unity.
Though I realise that second-language teaching policy is a provincial matter enforced through public schools by provincial and territorial ministries of education, considering the crucial role it plays in determining the future unity of our nation (or shoud I say nations, whether Inuit, First, Founding, or immigrant?), how is it that the federal government has not even bothered to promote any kind of consultation between the provincial and territorial ministries of education to agree to a common second-language teaching policy that could adopt, revise, or create an auxiliary language that could be promoted in schools nationwide as a building block for the foundation of a solid national unity for the future?
What are your thoughts on this? Is Canada lagging behind other nations in the development of rational language policies?Could this negligence be the cause of a future collapse of our nation? Should we take steps now to address this issue? How important do you think a common language is in maintaining national unity?
-
What? This is about making the Trans Canada 4 lane from coast to coast...and it is not unused for most parts. Northwestern Ontario is really the only place on the mainland with a low traffic count, and that count would increase with four laning fewer people would go through the US. It would also increase productivity by decreasing shipping times for goods moved by truck. You obviously have not traveled large portions of the highway.
I've traveleld from Ottawa, ON to Victoria, BC along most of the highway. In Manitoba and Saskattchewan it was empty half the time.
-
We must have our own transportation infrastructure. That doesn't mean we stop collaborating. You are simply looking at this and taking it to extremes. This doesn't mean we stop working together with other countries, it means we will be improving our own country to our benefit.
That I can agree with. But by implicaiton, it would also mean fully integrating the two systems.
-
You clearly do not understand that fixed links are much more unifying than air links. This would make the west more accessible to easterners and vice versa. Language training in both French and English would also be a good thing though.
Sorry, you missed my point. I fully agree that fixed links are more unifying than airlinks. My point was that even with easier transportation, a Quebecer who doesn't know English still wont' get a job in Vancouver, maybe not even Ottawa, no matter how good the rail system.
I fully agree with upgrading our rail system if the objective is to create a more efficient transporation network. But if the objective is to promote a greater sense of unity, then its benefit woud be negligible compared to a simple restructuring of the second-language teaching policies of Canada's ministries of education, based on the latest research in pedagogical cybernetics, at a fraction of the price.
Of course I'm not saying that these objectives are mutually exclusive either, and we could always go both routes simultaneously to achieve both objectives simultaneously. But the article did mention that it would promote unity. I'm just pointing out that if that's the main objective, then a railway line would not be the most efficient means to that particular objective. I'm just saying that they are two separate objectives in need to two separate remedies.
-
The whole point of this is to be self sufficient in as many ways as possible. We don't want to have to rely on the US. Nationalism isn't petty.
Let's not asume that self-sufficiency is always the best route. Don't you remember the battle for wheat in history class? let me remind you. When Mussolini came to power, Italy exported many highly valued agricultural products and imported cheap wheat.
Out of blind nationalism, Mussolini forced the farmers to scrap their highly valued cash crops and produce wheat, all in the name of autarchy. He did win that battle, but in the end, as it turned out, the farmers were poorer than they were before when they produced higher value products for export and just imported the wheat.
Let's learn from history and not make the same mistake. There's nothing wrong with inter-dependence whereby each country does what it does best and then exchanges for what it needs. All countries benefit from this.
And with this kind of collaboration, both Canada and the US would benefit. By not collaborating, both sides lose, all in the name of nationalism. Are we to grow our own bananas too? Let's not hurt ourselves just for the opportunity to beat our naitonalistic chests now and then.
And most importantly, let's not confuse patriotism and nationalism. They are two very different things altogether.
-
Many parts should be improved and are being improved. This would speed up the process, a very good thing.
Why would we want to build a new Canadian four-lane highway system when the Trans-Can usually lies unused in most spots?
Should'nt we try to get more cars on the highway system we have now before buidling even more highway?
One possibility would be to accept more immigration. A low populaiton density is a big disadvantge for Canada on the world stage economically. Geographically we're huge, yet almost nobody lives here. We need to expand our population if we truly want to have a world-class trans-Canada transportation system tht we can afford. I'd be all for opening the floodgates; that might be one of the best things we could do to bolster the Canadian economy right now. It would also provide the tax base for a quality rail system.
But before a four-lane Canadian highway system is worthwhile, we'd need to expand our populaiton considerably just to get more cars on the roads we have now.
-
Another point. If the objective for this is to promote more national unity, I think Ignatieff is barking up the wrong tree. A Quebecer can easily board a plane for Vancouver already. The problem is, will he understand the locals when he gets off the plane? No amount of transportation infrastructure will fix that. The only thing tha can fix that is a co-ordinated and rational second-language teaching policy on the part of ministries of education across the country, based on the latest research in pedagogical cybernetics.
-
Four lane national highway system? Have you ever driven across Canada on the Trans-Canada Highway? There's barely a car on the road half the time as it is, yet we have a small population tax base to pro up such a long highway.
As for the high-speed rail system between population centres in close proximity to one another might be more reasonable, considering that it would be focussed on parts of the contry that do have a population base to support it and not just blind idealism.
One point to make, based on the rality of our low population density, is that it would make sense to promote more integration between Via Rail and Amtrak. Both have a hard time, and for the exact same reason: low population density.
If we focussed on a few North-South railway lines, Canada would benefit by not having to build the silly highway system and so much rail line. And the US would benefit by having more Canadian passengers using its East-West lines. Let's amalgamae Amtrak and Via Rail. I can understand Canadian naionalism and all, but let's be rational here. North America has a low populaiton density. The only way for us to ever develop a high quality rail system like in Europe is for us to set our petty nationalisms aside and work together on this. Now that would be a vision.
-
If we really want to help Afghanistan, we should do so according to their own cultural context. One example could include:
Canada could offer funding for literacy education. The more Afghans are literate, the more they can read the Qur'an for themselves and judge for themselves what it says about women. I've read the Qur'an a few times, and can say that, though it does not grant women equality with men, at least not explicitely anyway, it does explicitely grant them certain minimal rights, some of which can be understood in a more progressive manner. If more Afghans could read the Qur'an for themselves, some more progressive-minded Afghans might in fact understand the Qur'an differently from the more Conservative Mullahs. The spread of literacy could thus sow the seed of a more progressive understanding of Shari'a, which could eventually lead to a reduction in the power of the 'Ulama, a power they maintain today mainly owing to the illiteracy of their followers who depend on them to explain the Qur'an.
When a person is dependent on another to interpret his religion for him, that gives that other a tremendous amount of power over him. Now multiply that by many illiterates each depending on a small number of Mullahs to interpret their religion for them.
If literacy spread, and more Afghans read the Qur'an for themselve, Afghanistan would likely start to look more like Iran, whereby though women would still not have equality with men, they'd at least have some minimal protections, some of which might be understood in a more progressive manner, as outlined in the Qur'an. Though this would still be a far cry from total equality, it would still be a step in the right direction. Consider that a few years ago even Iran had criticized the Taliban for being too extreme.
-
And before anyone criticizes Shari'a, let's consider for a moment the special provisions guaranteed to Catholci schools in some Canadian provinces under our Canadian Constitution, laws that are still applicable today!
Even Canada has been officially criticized for this privilege to one religious denomination but not others by the UN twice, and still unresolved. And the provincial government of Ontario has chosen to igrnore the international community on this.
Look at the parallels. Country X has laws granting special privileges based on a particular religion. The international community criticizes country X for this, but country X chooses to ignore it to cater to their voting base. So am I referring to Canada or Afghanistan. Take your pick.
So how can the kettle be taken seriously while criticising the pot when it's black itself?
-
Why don't Canadian urban planners learn from the experience of cities that do have a high population density?
When I wa in Hong Kong, I was amazed at how well-planned it was. In spite of the population density, it was a truly pleasurable city. We had walking paths aboe the streets downtown so that pedestrians didn't hinder car traffic. That was brilliant. Instead of building more roads to compensate for all the extra traffic caused by pedestrians, just get the pedesrians off the road. It benefits the pedestrians since they don't have to wait at traffic lights anymore. And it benefits drivers since they don't have as many pedestrians crossing the road, thus speeding up street traffic. And it benefits taxpayers by not having to build more roads (though granted that last point is not an option in Hong Kong).
But certainly our urban planners could learn from cities like London, New York, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and see how they've done it.
-
A two price system for an export commodity? So who takes the hit on the difference?
I'd be seriously PO'ed if forced to take less from you for my product, than from the guy just behind you in the line. Albert/Sask/NL would take mighty unkindly to it, and be well justified.
Or an export tax to force down domestic prices? NAFTA pretty much precludes that, but even if it didn't, see above.
What if the government simply sold the resources to the extraction companies at a higher price? That would not violate any agreement sicne if the resource is on crown land, the government can sell it at whatever price it wants, and each company is free to accept it or not.
If we did this, chances are fewr companies would be interested in buying the resources. This would mean less revenue for the government (after all, if there's no sell, there's no transaction), and the reduction in the oil supply comming from Canada would push world oil prices up.
The advantage though is that this could tempt other countries to sell mroe of their resources, and once they tart running low and the price starts to rise, then companies might be willing to look to Canada again and be willing to pay the higehr price. This would give Canada more money for the petrol in the long run.
-
Again, moving in the direction of world unity I can accept, but not closing ourselves into Fortress America.
-
What "high standards" would those be? How can this be reconciled with "multiculturalism".
High standards? like religious discrimination in Ontario's public school system? The UN has even officially condemned Canada for this... twice.
Our treatment of First Nations and Inuit?
A little arrogant, don't you think?
-
You must have money and live in a nice civilized neighbourhood. I am sure you would be against a merger between Jamacia and Canada with a totally open boarder policy. Go live at Jane and Finch in Toronto. Take a walk at night and think to yourself..If you could go back in time would you have imported the Jamacian crimminal culture to Canada...? Then think again about a merger with America which would cause a leak of Mexican migrants and murderous drug dealing thugs that kill for a living - then think ..do you want them here? There is a horrific price to pay with merger regarding America - a decayed atomosphere and human misery...Look at the EU - then think back - was it Europe better before this big mix up?
And what about tha Canadian who was arrested by the Thai police for sexual assault on minors last year? They could think just as easily that they'd never want to merge with Canada to keep all the Canadian pedophiles out of their country.
If you think that open borders woud increase crime rates, then you have a mighty low opinion of foreigners. Though this would make it easier for all, the virtuous and criminals, to cross borders, it would not increase crime. it's not a one-sided matter with those evil foreigners coming to ruin our pristine society. It goes both ways. We have good and bad people entering Canada. Some benefit our country, some don't. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Same with Thailand. Not all Canadians who go abroad are pedophiles in spite of the high profile arrest of a Canadian there last year.
I've lived abroad myself by the way. Just to give some idea of my experiences of different cities and countries and people:
I've lived in Ottawa, Victoria, Nanaimo, Canvouver, La Malbaie, Montreal, Kitchener and Toronto. My dad was in the military and I had to move provinces for family and work in the past. And these cities are just in Canada. I've also visited Quebec city, Trenton, Calgary, Edmonton, and many other cities in Canada.
In the US, I've visited Boston and Bellingham.
I've also lived in Jinan, Shanghai, Hefei, and Changchun, and have visited Beijing, Urumqi, Hong Kong, and a few other cities in China.
My ex-wife was Ethiopian.
I can speak speak, read, write, and understand four languages with complete fluency (English, French and Esperanto). I can speak and understand another with moderate fluency (Mandarin). And I know a smattering of Arabic and Persian.
I've read the Bible, the Qur'an and others of the world's religious texts.
So I do know at least a little about the world beyond Canada's borders, and can say from experience that Canadians can be just as corrupt abroad as foreigners can be decent in Canada.
-
Don't do it unless you are prepared for your crime rate to go up.
As any significant new development has to include some form of social housing. Once people move into that housing drugs, prostitution and property crime will rise dramatically. The whole culture of social housing seems to have an obligation to crime.
I've been to White Rock, it's a very nice, small community right on the border. Trust me keep it that way. Look whats happened to Surrey and Burnaby. Do you want that for White Rock as well?
Oppose public Transit at every meeting, every chance you get. Once you have public transit, it's all over as the poor people start coming and with them, the crime wave.
Are you sure you've got your stats straight? I remember reading last year that break and enter crimes are much higher in the suburbs owing to few people being there in the daytime.
I'd have to find the link for that again, and of course we'd have to look at the overall crime rate, but it would be nice to see statistics to confirm.
You also seem to stereotype the poor as crimnals. Some poor might be poor simply due to bad luck in life, just as some rich are rich because of under-the-table dealings.
To oppose efficient land use and fuel efficient transportation like public transit just to keep the poor away is a perfect example of NIMBYism. It just pushes the poor elsewhere, again with no clear correlation between poverty and crime. In fact, some among the middle class, such as myself, do in fact use public transit as a matter of choice to protect the environment. If Ottawa scrapped its public transit system just to get rid of the poor, it would also force me to drive to work all the time, thus increasing the need for more ugly highways. No thanks to that.
-
The lower the population density, the more inefficient the city. You end up with a small poopulation base having to maintian a massive urban infrastructure of roads and highways. Naturally, this will tend towards higher taxes too. In a higher-density city, you have a larger tax-base population-wise having to maintian a smaller infrastructure geographically speaing, and so are more likely to face a lower tax-base generally speaking.
But hey, we get what we ask fr. Some people would rather pay the extra taxes for the Lebensraum.
-
French-Canadians, inside and outside Quebec, respond well to this type of communication which appeals to the emotions. It's been said that French is the language of love although Italians also claim this distinction.
I'm a native French-speaking Canadian myself, though I have a different view. As far as I'm concerned, French and English are foreign to the North American continent and, as such, ought to have no offical status at any government level in Canada. I have no qualms about English and French having a de-facto status in Canada, but I do disagree with them having any official status. The only languages in Canada that ought to have an official status, if any should have one, are either local indigenous languages or an IAL.
So it would be wrong to suppose that all native French-speaking Canadians share the same beliefs and emotions with regards to their language. This will really depend on their overal beliefs. Those with a stronger ethnic identity are more likely to be more favourable to the wider dissemination of the French language, while those with a more cosmopolitan identity are more likley to be in favour of universal bilingualism in ones first language plus an IAL. Of course, there will always be various shades along the spectrum between these extremes, just as is the case among native Enlish-speaking Canadians.
-
Whoever decided to make French a compulsory second-language in all Ontario schools should be fired. Few actually succeed in learning it.
-
No, but we always know best what's good for them, after all that's our main call to fame in the international affairs.
Just wait till we get out, and all those who believed and got carried away by the foreign ideals will be left to face the local music all by themselves. The cost of mindless benevolence (if that's what it is, rather than attempt at a sheer dominance).
And another point worth mentioning. The first country to recognizewomen as persons under the law was New Zealand in 1893. The last place to give women the right to vote in Europe was a Swiss Canton in 1989.
These ideas need to evolve with time. Afghanistan's basic insfrastructure is practicaly non-existent yet. Do we honestly expect them to travel the same distance we did in over a hundred years in fewer than 10?
One thing at a time. Right now, whether a woman has the right to refuse sex to her husband is the least of a woman's concerns in Afghanistan right now. What about basic literacy education for all? Afghanistan will have to undergothe same process of development we did.
Heck,even in Canada today there are women who believe that women shoud not be allowed to work outside the home legally. They might be a small minority, but it does go to show that if these ideas still exist in Canada, let's not rush Afghanistan into this too quickly. This would be preferable than another 20 years of civil war over women's rights in Afghanistan.
Let it evolve.
-
The strategies you cite, Machjo, would be great, if applied exclusively in urban areas. (That makes them a more likely local, not federal, issue. )
It would be wonderful if local governments had the power to tax resources. But I suppose the other recommendations could be tackled at the lcoal level.
Here in Ottawa, the population is incredibly spread out. We don't need a city of the geographical size of Ottawa with the small population we have. Unfortunately, building more streets and highways just encourages suburban sprawl and, of course, gas consumption. We made our bed, so now we can sleep in it.
If local governments did in fact shift some of their infrastructure spending from roads to walking and bicycle paths, gas consumption would gradually decline asmore people decide to moveclose to work, or as more businesses decide to move closer to their customer base in the suburbs. And this reductionin consumption would naturally reduce the upward pressure on gas taxes.
Gasoline is not a luxury to be heavily taxed to discourage its use (like alcohol, or tobacco)... but many of the machines that use it, are. I could certainly see a very, very steep urban-address surtax on vehicles and fuel, and an equally steep surtax on gas-guzzling 'toys', like snowmobiles and jet-skis....I personally do know some people who do use their transport vehicles, be they their car or motorcycle, for recreational purposes too.And how do we know that some guy living on an island does'nt in fact use his jet skis to go to work?Such instances might be rare, but it's not up to the government to dictate life-style choices in such minute details. Obviously your proposal would be unfair to the man who does in fact use his jet-skis to cross the river or lake togo to work while not taxing the man using his motorbike or car for recreational purposes. And what about the one who uses his car more often than his neighbour? I think the simplest and fairest solution would just to have a gas tax at the mump. Simple and straightforward. We can always compensate with lower income taxes. If walk to work, it's a net benefit. If you live 100 miles away from work, then it's an incentive to move closer to work.
The truth is, urban planning leaves a LOT to be desired. Segregating the places people work from the places they live-- which clearly is normal practice-- creates the need for personal substantial- distance-transportation. It's not the rural people who have an hour and a half daily commute to work. Their workplace is just outside their front door! The schools, hospitals and other services that are unnecessarily concentrated in some town or city ? miles away, though... they must commute to those.I fully agree that urban planning has a lot to be desired, and voters are squarely to blame for that. We choose to vote in local govrnments that will favour suburban sprawl. They want our votes, what do you expect.
-
The law can be reintroduced yet, especially if there is popular local support for it even among the women.
Second-language teaching policies.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Le problème, c'est que ni l'anglais ni le français sont particulièrement facile à apprendre. Cela implique un grand investissement d'argent.