Second-language teaching policies.

[Machjo]

I think you're confusing nationalism with imperialism.

I would define imperialism in a number of ways, one of which is a belief in the desirability on the part of one nation to dominate another. Another definition could be the actual dominance of one nation by another. In this respect, it is possible for a person to believe in the moral superiority of his nation over others, a form of national chauvinism, without necessarily desiring to dominate them. He might prefer isolationism as a way to protect his country from 'undesirable influences' instead. So based on those two definitions, nationalism and imperialism would be two separate ideas that could overlap but wouldn't necessarily overlap.

[Machjo]

Or let's go with dictionary.com

Patriotism:

–noun devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.

nationalism:

1. national spirit or aspirations.

2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.

3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.

4. the desire for national advancement or independence.

5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.

7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

imperialism

noun 1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

2. advocacy of imperial interests.

3. an imperial system of government.

4. imperial government.

5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

Among the definitions above, I think most would agree that imperialism is not a good thing. As for nationalism, it clearly has some negative nuances such as 'excesive patriotism; chauvinism'. patriotism seems to the the only one that avoids such possibly negative connotations.

[jbg]

Not to split hairs, but I don't think there's any problem at the moment. What I think is that the experiment will eventually fail. I may be wrong. Perhaps we can be the rare case where our arrangement works peacefully forever.

Well as PM Harper said a long time ago "Canada is a country that works in practice, though not in theory".

[Argus]

It can indeed be who it wants within Canada. And it will. You think this experiment is failing...I don't.

Apparently what it wants to be is backward, provincial, and perpetually on welfare.

[Molly]

Less we forget. Wanting to maintain one's own Canadian language is a form of defamation towards the English=speaking larger community. And an education as well as government services in our country two national languages is special treatment.

But the French-speaking inhabitants of Gravelbourg are "special" indeed - they are supposed to ask permission before being treated like the Canadians they are.

Take the chip off your shoulder.

If you are at all familiar with that community- that area- (and you are the one who referenced it) then you darned well know that around there, reasonable access to education at all is by no means assured; that an indoor swimming pool is a breathtaking luxury; that all the outpost hospitals for miles around were shut down quite some time ago and ambulance wait-times of over an hour are more common than not; that even basic highway maintenance is a highly doubtful benefit. You know that the francophone 'specialness' is cynically milked for everything it's worth (and it's worth plenty) by the ENTIRE surrounding area-- and believe me they aren't complaining, because without that edge, they would all do with very much less.

Compare services provided to Gravelbourg and district to those in Coronach, for instance. Or Bengough, Mankota, Consul, Rockglen... Hodgeville even, and tell me which of them is privileged all out of proportion with their population-- which recieves services and benefits and guarantees and resources that the others could only fondly dream about.

A knee-jerk leap to an assumption that in being aware of it, I object to the presence of non-english language instruction is plain wrong-- laughably, even offensively wrong, in fact-- but it is aptly representative of my suggestion that language/language education really has diddly to do with the tribalist/nationalist stresses.

It may be the public focus, but is not the cause, the root, the source.. of the isolation, the mutual misunderstanding, or of hostility.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Molly

[cybercoma]

Apparently what it wants to be is backward, provincial, and perpetually on welfare.

What Quebec wants is to be a self-interested party, like every other province, except it holds the balance of power in parliament, so it usually gets what it wants.

I'm bringing out the good English, complete with run-on sentences, just for you Argus.

Edited April 20, 2009 by cybercoma

[CANADIEN]

Take the chip off your shoulder.

Sorry for taking it off yours in the first place.

If you are at all familiar with that community- that area- (and you are the one who referenced it) then you darned well know that around there, reasonable access to education at all is by no means assured; that an indoor swimming pool is a breathtaking luxury; that all the outpost hospitals for miles around were shut down quite some time ago and ambulance wait-times of over an hour are more common than not; that even basic highway maintenance is a highly doubtful benefit. You know that the francophone 'specialness' is cynically milked for everything it's worth (and it's worth plenty) by the ENTIRE surrounding area-- and believe me they aren't complaining, because without that edge, they would all do with very much less.

Compare services provided to Gravelbourg and district to those in Coronach, for instance. Or Bengough, Mankota, Consul, Rockglen... Hodgeville even, and tell me which of them is privileged all out of proportion with their population-- which recieves services and benefits and guarantees and resources that the others could only fondly dream about.

If the pool was in Coronach and if the hospital was in Hodgeville, you would not complaining about how they "get things that other communities are not getting", so cry me a river.

A knee-jerk leap to an assumption that in being aware of it, I object to the presence of non-english language instruction (...)

is in fact based on your complaining about the so-called "disproportionate" amount of money spent on them, as well as your stated opinion that fights like the one Franch-speaking CANADIANS in Saskatchewan still have to pull for their education right are non-functioning and anachronistic.

[Molly]

LOL How big a word is 'if'? 'IF' tax money had provided those wonderful resources to (any) other comparable communities, or even if there was a snowballs chance in Hades that such things would even be CONSIDERED for other comparable communities, much less built- then I couldn't point out the preferential treatment that put them where they are! Any community other than Gravelbourg would not even have gotten in to the offices so as to be to be laughed back out, in proposing them.

For heavens sake, the preferential treatment is FACT. We can either approve of it or disapprove of it, but pretending it isn't so is blinkered and obstructive.

Would you care to rejoin the conversation? Instead of huffing and puffing because I dare wonder why anyone would want to live in French in rural Saskatchewan-- I haven't suggested that it is not an entitlement-- tell me how national unity is served by it.

This conversation would suggest that it is not unifying at all-- that it is a wedge, and being wielded as a wedge.

[Molly]

I'm glad that you bring up the notion of francophony outside Quebec, and in part, agree with your assertion... but would also suggest that the 'fight' would be unnecessary but for a fruitless clinging to a non-functioning, anachronistic relic of an old fight. The impracticality of such steadfastness is utterly staggering.

I know that's strong language... but I would not expect to live in English in Mexico, or in Germany, or in Sweden. Swedes and Mexicans and Germans do not come to dominantly anglophone areas of Canada expecting to live in either their langugae of origin, or in French.... Why then would folks who live in ... even if born and raised in... francophone outposts in the great anglophone sea of north america, have any expectation of thriving without learning to speak with their neighbours, or any expectation that their neighbours would move a mountain in order to more easily communicate with them?

Again, don't get me wrong-- I welcome those outposts and value them much more highly than my comments suggest, but do they, or the determination to preserve them, really make any sense at all?

This bit appears to be the part that got your back up... that and noting that access to French language education is currently assured with little regard to the cost, in an area where access to English language education for the English-speaking majority is pinched to the point of being, by all practical measure, denied to more than a few. I call that disproportionate. What word would you use?

I'm not backing down either, from observing that maintaining (any non-majority language) as a first language through multiple generations in a tiny, tiny outpost where for most of that time, it has to have served as a SERIOUS disadvantage, completely dumbfounds me. Insularity would have to be grimly nursed in order to do that. It represents several generations of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.... Seriously... wow.

[CANADIEN]

This bit appears to be the part that got your back up... that and noting that access to French language education is currently assured with little regard to the cost, in an area where access to English language education for the English-speaking majority is pinched to the point of being, by all practical measure, denied to more than a few. I call that disproportionate. What word would you use?

The word I would use is cr*p. But I have seen the light Never mind that, for the most part, English-speaking children in Saskatchewan have access to better educational resources than French-speaking students, Never mind that French-speaking students who wants a post-secondary education in their Canadian language have to leave the province. Never mind that there are no more than a dozen or so French schools in the whole Province. Never mind that if were talking about Campbell's Bay, a Quebec village smaller than Gravelbourg, in a rural area with an English language high school but no French high school in the immediate area, neither you or I would use the word disproportionate. There is, somewhere in the Province, ONE French-language high school (founded and first financed by people who contributed to it in addition to their school taxes, at a time where education in their Canadian language was virtually (and rightfully) outlawed) in an area where there is not a full fledged English language high school because of the population size. That's enough of an excuse to scream "disproportionate".

I'm not backing down either, from observing that maintaining (any non-majority language) as a first language through multiple generations in a tiny, tiny outpost where for most of that time, it has to have served as a SERIOUS disadvantage, completely dumbfounds me. Insularity would have to be grimly nursed in order to do that. It represents several generations of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face....

And thank you so very much for reminding of wrong headed it is of me not to recognize that I do not know what is best of me and that I need your guidance. Never mind that the "disadvantage" was the denial of the rights of Canadians to make their own choice. Never mind that the generation of French-speaking Canadians whose rights have been recognized are more likely to have a secondary and post-secondary diploma, less likely to be illeterate in either English or French, likely to have better jobs than their fathers and grandfathers whose rights were denied. Never mind that this is 2008, and that we are not turning the clock back to the days when we had less right.

Seriously...

The condescending "I know what is best for you" act is laughable at best. Edited April 22, 2009 by CANADIEN

[lictor616]

ahhh yes... the more issues of diversity we have the stronger no?

so clearly: more languages= better strength right? I mean that's what are government says...

[Machjo]

Watch out for the elephants.

I see how the two elephants of English and French fight on for turf while the First nations and Inuit mice get trampled underfoot. It's amazing how our colinial mindset continues to work. We're so concerned about French-language rights in Victoria, BC and Quebec, Quebec. But what about the First Nations and the Inuit. Shoudl they not have the same rights? But then you can see how expensive it would become to manage all of these languages. I think we have 64 of them if I remember correctly. With French and English, 66!

So how do we balance practicality with justice? How do we decide which languages shold be more equal than others?

[CANADIEN]

LOL

LOL Indeed. You make me laugh.

How big a word is 'if'? 'IF' tax money had provided those wonderful resources to (any) other comparable communities, or even if there was a snowballs chance in Hades that such things would even be CONSIDERED for other comparable communities, much less built- then I couldn't point out the preferential treatment that put them where they are! Any community other than Gravelbourg would not even have gotten in to the offices so as to be to be laughed back out, in proposing them.

Nice little dodge. If the high school, the pool.the hospital were in a English-speaking community, you would not be calling that preferential treatment.

For heavens sake, the preferential treatment is FACT. We can either approve of it or disapprove of it, but pretending it isn't so is blinkered and obstructive.

French-speaking inhabitants of Saskatchewan are likely to have less access to education services in their Canadian language, at any level, less access to health care in their canadian language, less access to government services, than the rest of the population. Preferential treatment indeed.

Would you care to rejoin the conversation? Instead of huffing and puffing

... the way you huff and puff because French-speaking CANADIANS dare not to assimilate?

because I dare wonder why anyone would want to live in French in rural Saskatchewan-- I haven't suggested that it is not an entitlement-- tell me how national unity is served by it.

This conversation would suggest that it is not unifying at all-- that it is a wedge, and being wielded as a wedge.

National unity is served by the rights and identities of Canadians being respected. The wedge is being wielded by YOU, with your "I know what is best for you" attitude and your dislike of the continued existence of french-speaking communities outside Quebec.

[CANADIEN]

ahhh yes... the more issues of diversity we have the stronger no?

so clearly: more languages= better strength right? I mean that's what are government says...

The issue is not the number of languages, it's the rights of Canadians.

[lictor616]

Watch out for the elephants.

I see how the two elephants of English and French fight on for turf while the First nations and Inuit mice get trampled underfoot. It's amazing how our colinial mindset continues to work. We're so concerned about French-language rights in Victoria, BC and Quebec, Quebec. But what about the First Nations and the Inuit. Shoudl they not have the same rights? But then you can see how expensive it would become to manage all of these languages. I think we have 64 of them if I remember correctly. With French and English, 66!

So how do we balance practicality with justice? How do we decide which languages shold be more equal than others?

AHHAHAhahahaaha pfffff

just what we need! Inuit taught as third official language! A government tax to update computers, Windows vista, milk cartons, with appropriate native "dialects" right alongside French and English...

sheer brilliance! I love to see the lefty "Mind" at work, ever so exhaustively trying to sniff out perceived "iniquity" and make it illegal...

First Nation people's don,t even recognize the French OR English to begin with...

[jbg]

National unity is served by the rights and identities of Canadians being respected. The wedge is being wielded by YOU, with your "I know what is best for you" attitude and your dislike of the continued existence of french-speaking communities outside Quebec.

A fair trade would be appropriate Quebec respect for the rights of its English speakers. Of course consistency in is never politically correct.

I do recognize that you, personally, are not anti-Anglophone. My comment is directed at Le Belle Provence's government.

Je me souviens!!! (I remember the mistreatment of the Anglophones)

[Molly]

Canadien, you have shockingly selective reading skills, a penchant for making some pretty insulting assumptions, a very big chip on your shoulder, and precious little knowledge of the community you cited or the circumstances and human relationships of that area.

So be it. Ciao.

[Machjo]

AHHAHAhahahaaha pfffff

just what we need! Inuit taught as third official language! A government tax to update computers, Windows vista, milk cartons, with appropriate native "dialects" right alongside French and English...

sheer brilliance! I love to see the lefty "Mind" at work, ever so exhaustively trying to sniff out perceived "iniquity" and make it illegal...

First Nation people's don,t even recognize the French OR English to begin with...

When did I evr say that we should make the indigenous languages official languages of Canada?AllI'm saying is that we're having a grand exchange on this thread about 'our' rights while some of the nation's indigenous languages are currently threatened with extinction.

[Machjo]

Here's what I typed on another thread, but it does apply to this debate too (with some modifications):

As far as I'm concerned, there is no hard and fast rule as to whether a multi-nation state can succeed. I think it depends on how willing the participants are to integrate. In Indonesia, with over 300 ethnic groups, there is surprisingly little tension considering how many ethnic groups we're dealing with.

One issue is our inability to settle our differences. A simple example is the following mixed-language though not bilingual (i.e., it uses both English and French, but neither is necessarily a translation of the other) video, funded at least in part by the National Film Board of Canada in 1974:

http://www.vigile.net/Speak-White,9775

Though it is old, it is still presented on many sovereigntist websites today. That's where I'd found it. No, I'm not necessarily a sovereigntist myself. But how can we engage the sovereigntist movement without first understanding it?

If you look at that video, you'll see how it promotes certain ethnic sterotypes of Anglos as racist. It's titled 'Speak White', clearly provocative even in 1974, or so I'd imagine, when it was created. 'Speak white' would have a strong connotation as it comes from an expression used by certain Anglos when addressed in French, not only at the time the video was released, but even today (it had happenned to me once in Ottawa).

One problem though is that many sovereigntists are not functional in English. So while they see such videos stereotyping Anglos as racists, and comparing them to Nazis and KKK members (as you'll see in the video), and presenting them as arrogant classists treating francophones as 'the white niggers of America' (a term sometimes used, though less often now than before since Quebec has developed much since the Quiet Revolution, by Quebecers in an ironic sense to emphasize their perceived marginalization in Canadian society as was the case with blacks in the US. America here is of course referring to the continent, not the country), they have little real contact with English-speakers unless those English-speakers happen to know French. Even the internet can't bridge that gap.

You might also want to see the following videos of Patrick Bourgeois:

In them, he talks about 'Quebec Bashing'. It would seem that he knows English well himself, based on how eruditely he has translated select passages from the English-language media. For the most part, he quotes are negative stereotypes about Quebec, from journalists, TV reporters, TV interviewees, letters to the editors, etc. His selection mainly consists of quotes that are highly ethnicist and offensive to Quebecers, portraying them as racists, backwards, etc. He then laughs them off along with the audience (many of whom might not know English), and then goes on to show how the same quotes could just as easily apply to the Anglos, or that they're totally baseless and trace their roots to ingnorant comments made in history but that have stuck.

In one example specimen that portrays Quebec as anti-semite and referring to Jaques Parizeau's comments, though he doesn't defend Parizeau, he does point out two things:

1. That Parizeau is but one person and should not reflect on all sovereigntists. and

2. How it was Canada and not Quebec that had turned away many Jews from Nazi Germany prior to the Second World War, many of whom had no choice but to return to the Nazi regime. He adds emphais that only a few hundred Jews were even accepted by the whole nation at that time.

Now how can we break down these kinds of stereotypes on both sides when we don't even have a common language? Only about 15% of Canadians know both languages, and we're all busy with our lives too, so can't be translating everything between the two languages, now can we?

So how do we ensure that monolingual Quebecers can in fact get a more balanced view of English Canada, and vice versa?

Just visit Quebec internet forums. Many of them, especially the sovereigntist ones, comprise mostly monolinguals for all intents and purposes.

And the same applies for the most part in English-language forums. There is but minimal exchange of information on either side. How to break that barrier?

This by the way applied not only to areas of much contact between the two groups. When I was selling chocolates for a school ski trip in Victoria, BC when I was 12, a kind man who had just pullod out his wallet had asked me which school it was for. Sicne he coulnd't understand the pronunciaiton of the school, I'd explained that it was a French-medium school. His immediate reaction was to put his wallet back into his pocket, say, and I quote, 'I don't like French people', and walk away. The sudden change in his behaviour threw me away.

Though I'd been exposed to language politics before too. Again in Victoria, BC, I'd once overheard teachers in the hallways complaining about unfair allocationof funds for French-medium schools in BC. True or not, I don't know. But you can see how even chidren's views of Canada can change based on how adults, including teachers, present themselves as role models to them concerning inter-group relations in Canada.

When I was working as an adult in La Malbaie one year, since I knew the local high school teachers well, I got an image of their attitudes too. I remember hearing them on the rare occasion refr to the 'maudits anglais!'. Though not used often, it doesn't matter. It only needs to be heard once to have its effect. If even teachers are engaging in this inter-group conflict in public in high schools, imagine the student body coming out of these schools. And La Malbaie and Victoria aren't exactly next door toeach other. So this is clearly a national issue.

[jbg]

When did I evr say that we should make the indigenous languages official languages of Canada?AllI'm saying is that we're having a grand exchange on this thread about 'our' rights while some of the nation's indigenous languages are currently threatened with extinction.

I'm a Yank who knows nothing about Canada. Right now, the official languages are French, English and Canadian, right?

[Machjo]

I'm a Yank who knows nothing about Canada. Right now, the official languages are French, English and Canadian, right?

First off, there's no such language as 'Canadian'. We have two European languages as our official languages (English and French)... at the federal level. All provinces but one (Newfoundland and Labrador) and two territories have but one (English or French) official language. Nunavut has four (English, French, Inuktitut, and Inuinnaqtun).

[Oleg Bach]

French was important - but it is no longer so. My sister inlaw makes a good living teaching French...has been for a couple of decades - but she really can not converse in French - If our teaching system can not take French seriously... then why should I?

[jbg]

First off, there's no such language as 'Canadian'. We have two European languages as our official languages (English and French)... at the federal level. All provinces but one (Newfoundland and Labrador) and two territories have but one (English or French) official language. Nunavut has four (English, French, Inuktitut, and Inuinnaqtun).

I think it's NB, not NL that has two. As for "Canadian" what the heck were Dion and Chretien speaking? It wasn't always French but when not French I couldn't make head or tails of it. Isn't that Canadian language?

[Machjo]

I think it's NB, not NL that has two. As for "Canadian" what the heck were Dion and Chretien speaking? It wasn't always French but when not French I couldn't make head or tails of it. Isn't that Canadian language?

Sorry you're right. ew Brunswick.

And Chretien and Dion were just trying to speak English. Can you speak French as well as they can speak English?

[lictor616]

When did I evr say that we should make the indigenous languages official languages of Canada?AllI'm saying is that we're having a grand exchange on this thread about 'our' rights while some of the nation's indigenous languages are currently threatened with extinction.

well that's tough ... but how many dialects go extinct every century... thousands right? again this is nugatory: The strong do what they can the weak suffer what they must... that's the law of life...