Coherence from a Party Leader Please

[Machjo]

What I do clearly understand is that everyone is more than ready to make an excuse - as you have just done.

I am not prepared to open the cheque book so my tax dollars can placate every special interest group - not interested in excuses - suck it up folks - the past is past and we cannot change it.

Move along folks - time to get over it. My family did - so can yours.

Borg

Who was talking about cheque books? How about simple decentralization? The Federal government could serve as something like the EU Parliament, whereas the provinces could serve as something equal to European nations. Each to their own in a common united but decentralized federation. But very decentralized.

[Machjo]

Exactly.

When someone decides to come to the U.S. or Canada or any "New World" country, the presumption must be that they came to start a new life, and not import the hatreds and idiosyncracies of the old country here. The immigrants should learn English, Canadian or French, depending on where they move to, and absorb themselves in the new country.

As to the "Roberval" story if the Quebeckers are asking the rest of Canada to become functionally bi-lingual, at least as to signage, education and government services, so should Quebec be.

Most Francophone Quebecers are more opposed ot Official Bilingualism than the Conservative Party. Even the Bloc has asked that federal offices in Quebec no longer be required to offer services in English. Irony of ironies, the Bloc is more conservative than the conservatives in that particular front.

[Machjo]

Even heard of Switzerland? Unless of course you consider love of money to be a language? :lol:

OK, I used my words wrong there. But Switzerland is also much, much more decentralized than Canada, with most of the power in the hands of the Cantons, not their federal government. And they essentially practice regional monolingualism at the government levels for the most part.

[CANADIEN]

Most Francophone Quebecers are more opposed ot Official Bilingualism than the Conservative Party. Even the Bloc has asked that federal offices in Quebec no longer be required to offer services in English.

And they can ask until Hell freezes over as far as I am concerned.

[Machjo]

It's funny you'd write this in the same post as talking about ignoring the past.

Assimilation is not "forced" in most cases. It's a natural phenomenon. It's why there are English speakers at all, instead of a bunch of people speaking the various tribal languages, ie saxon, welsh, gaelic, which were the native languages in England's past. Given no deliberate efforts in either direction, a minority population will assimilate into the majority over time, especially with regard to language. Religion is about all that stands in the way of that assimilation.

And since most Francophones have stopped having children because it's too much of a drag on their lifestyle enjoyment to raise them, the percentage of French speakers in Canada goes down every year.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/03/language-wars.html

Sticking needles through the tongues of Aboriginal children in forced residential schools who dared speak their mother tongue was quite the motivator too. Maybe our immersion programme instructors coul d learn from that success.

[Machjo]

And they can ask until Hell freezes over as far as I am concerned.

I was just pointing out how the mutual enemies of the Bloc and the Conservatives often seem to have more in common with each other than they do with the other parties, that's all.

[Machjo]

I have a lot of respect for Canada. The Canada that helped assure that the world wouldn't be speaking German, Japanese and/or Russian.

Freedom isn't free. Your country has a part to play in keeping the free world free. Never forget it.

What does this have to do with languages. Read my post above. needles through the tongue played a nice part too.

[Machjo]

that's because Quebec has an official language of French. Manitoba has none and if it did, I think it's one of the provinces that would need to have both French and English as official.

Why should any province have more than one official language? For any regional entity to function effectively, it needs a common language, and in that respect though I think Bill 101 goes way too far, I do agree with the basic principle at least. It not ony saves money, but ensures full integration of the community, not to be confused with assimilation, which Bill 101 does unfortunately do.

Edited May 10, 2009 by Machjo

[Machjo]

Nothing more than platitudes - for the laws of today would not allow the return to the days of old.

However the past cannot be changed - time for those who believed they were persecuted to suck it up and move on.

Just like your ancestors in kebec - but they are unable to do so. And by remaining this way they continue to create and perpetuate the animosity.

My family did get over it and got quite wealthy by "geting over it" and taking it to the financial side. Living well is, after all, the best revenge.

Fortunately your people are slowly being forced into the real world - it will be better for you in the long run. After all you speak English now - so you are slowly joining the main stream despite doing it kicking and screaming. It will happen in kebec as well.

50 more years and it will be the main stream language - I might even be around to see it.

Unless of course they leave - which is a better solution. Saves the costs of bi-lang in Canada and even manufacturing will get a bit cheaper. No bi-lang labels and instructions.

Gotta' run - Air Canada is not gong to wait for me and I want to head west across the pond - been away too long.

One final note - It is YOU who cannot get over the past - your writing shows it very well - Argus hass picked up on it as well - time to look in the mirror and ask if you are as golden as you might believe. I think not. We see it and you either do not or you ignore it.

Cheers

Borg

I see. So all of Canada's problems are caused by 'our' 'refusing' to learn 'your' language? Britain no longer rules the waves even though she may still wave the rules.

[Wild Bill]

What does this have to do with languages. Read my post above. needles through the tongue played a nice part too.

Never heard this story until you mentioned it. Do you have an independent cite or link?

Was it a case of one instance from one cruel instructor or was it a universal practice that happened to every aboriginal child in Canada?

Was it official policy of the Canadian government or was it an isolated case of some Roman Catholic "missionary" teacher?

Did it happen in barbaric frontier times or is it a modern phenomenon?

If it's still happening today I'd support capital punishment for the perpetrators. I'd pull the rope myself! The last thing I would want to see is them turned over to some kind of "sharing circle", tapped on the wrist and let go. You've described a horrendous act and the punishment should be equally horrific to serve as a deterrent.

[Machjo]

Never heard this story until you mentioned it. Do you have an independent cite or link?

Was it a case of one instance from one cruel instructor or was it a universal practice that happened to every aboriginal child in Canada?

Was it official policy of the Canadian government or was it an isolated case of some Roman Catholic "missionary" teacher?

Did it happen in barbaric frontier times or is it a modern phenomenon?

If it's still happening today I'd support capital punishment for the perpetrators. I'd pull the rope myself! The last thing I would want to see is them turned over to some kind of "sharing circle", tapped on the wrist and let go. You've described a horrendous act and the punishment should be equally horrific to serve as a deterrent.

As for the needle through the tongue routine, I'd heard it on the CBC a while after the Oka Crisis. A woman was telling a panel of MPs how her father refused to teach her his language because he associated it with the pain he'd suffered during his time in residential school. He'd told her of one instance when a teacher had forced a needle through his tongue for speaking his language. On the same programme, a panel at a prison had found that most of the Indian prisoners had gone through the residential school system. One female prisoner was there for having murdered her baby; she couldn't bear the memories of her rape as a child every time she hugged her baby, because whenever she was hugged it was usually to be raped as a child.

As for the question of history, don't you think that if the current generation of Aboriginal parents and grandparents have gone through such an ordeal, that their children and grandchildren might suffer too? Remember, they were separated from their parents, the ones who were supposed to teach them the basic parenting skills they were to pass on to their children. The last residential school was closed down in the late 80s! So we're going to feel the repercussions of this for at least one more generation, assuming that we take action to provide necessary parenting skills to those we'd taken that education from. Otherwise, it will just get passed on again. Through the residential school system, we'd not only hurt a generation, but by separating them from their parents, also removed tfrom them the parenting skills needed to raise their children, which risks being passed down until corrected.

[Machjo]

I hope the CBC is independent enough for you:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/16/...al-schools.html

According to this, it was essentially forced assimilation along colonial lines, and the last school closed in 1996. It was forced attendance removed from family. So unless you think 1996 is the dark ages, we have an issue that will likely take at least another generation to correct, if we get onto it now to ensure the problems don't get passed on from generation to generation.

[Oleg Bach]

Most will say anything or do anything for a pay cheque. Politicals will do the same - most are opportunists and carreerist who are moved by poll - they blow about like dust in the wind looking for a drop of water. There is no consistent behavior - nor is there justice, because they do not love the people - just their own egos ----------It's about kingship - people will follow a father or mother that loves them - if there is no love - there is no following and hence no leadership.

[Machjo]

Add to that that it doesn't help nation-wide cohesion when Aboriginal children hear waht the 'White man' did to heir parents.

Cases of physical abuse, sexual abuse, punishment for speaking the mother tongue, even cases of broken bones and death. Forced separation from family, essentially attempted cultural genocide. This will take a long healing process and not a 'if you don't like us, get the hell out of our country attitude'. They have evdry right to be angry with a country that has done this to them.

[Machjo]

Most will say anything or do anything for a pay cheque. Politicals will do the same - most are opportunists and carreerist who are moved by poll - they blow about like dust in the wind looking for a drop of water. There is no consistent behavior - nor is there justice, because they do not love the people - just their own egos ----------It's about kingship - people will follow a father or mother that loves them - if there is no love - there is no following and hence no leadership.

Very true. A leader must genuinely love his fellow man.

[jbg]

And I have had people telling me how frustrating it was for them to get a reply in English every time they were trying to practice theirFrench.

The simple expediant would be to say "francais, sivouplea (sp)".

[jbg]

Each to their own in a common united but decentralized federation. But very decentralized.

How very Meech of you. Fortunately that bad idea was rejected. Trudeau was right for once.

[Wild Bill]

I hope the CBC is independent enough for you:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/16/...al-schools.html

According to this, it was essentially forced assimilation along colonial lines, and the last school closed in 1996. It was forced attendance removed from family. So unless you think 1996 is the dark ages, we have an issue that will likely take at least another generation to correct, if we get onto it now to ensure the problems don't get passed on from generation to generation.

Oh, I believe that abuse did occur. I just think that we have to deal with specifics. You mentioned ONE case of a needle through the tongue but I had taken the tone of your original point to mean that it was a common thing!

The CBC link confirms there were indeed residential schools that closed in 1996. It says that there were many instances of abuse. Who's arguing?

What's more important is HOW MANY specific instances of abuse! I agree that one is too many but I find it hard to believe that the majority were mistreated and that the majority of aboriginals can claim the schools "screwed them up".

It is also not logical to blame the entire white race for the actions of some members of the Catholic and Anglican churches. That too would be racist! The only people responsible are the specific individuals who committed the abuse. It makes about as much sense to blame all of 'white' society as it would be to tag ALL aboriginals as alcoholics because you have seen ONE native who was one!

I think we are seeing a very common difference in point of view here. Natives identify themselves in terms of tribes or groups. Non-natives don't! Especially traditional European cultures. We think of ourselves very much as individuals and so we don't feel any collective guilt.

I know I feel zero identification with some child abuser who ran a residential school. Hang 'em, for all I care. Takes care of repeat offences. I feel the same disconnect with abusers in non-native areas. Hell, I might not even accept them as fellow humans let alone think that we are both of the same "tribe".

Another question would be how long since these abuses occurred? Sooner or later one must break with the past if they are to have any hope of moving forward.

Myself, I see residential school abuses and much of the Indian Act to be classic examples of what happens when you allow socialist social engineers free rein to run the lives of a group of people. The tragedies inflicted on many First Nations people are classic examples of what those wingnuts will do if given half a chance. Their motives may have been noble but when it came to actual implementation of their screwy ideas they were revealed as true "fruit loops".

The saddest thing of all is that for many reserves I don't see any hope unless they make a dramatic break from their cycle of "being victims". The Indian Act should be abolished. Give aboriginals the same property rights as any other Canadian. The traditional system of reserves was supposedly designed to allow tribes to preserve their traditional ways of life. That was fine in 1850 perhaps but in the 21st century the idea is just no longer possible. Nor I believe would most aboriginals want to opt out of modern life, with its technology, medicines and conveniences.

The problem is that living on a reserve under the Indian Act severely limits an individual's ability to earn his own way in the modern world. If he can't start his own business that is self-sustaining then he is trapped to live on a perpetual government "dole". How can a "sovereign nation" exist if it can only glean income from another government's monies, including those from lawsuits and land claims?

Societies can only survive if they can create their own wealth. Otherwise they are doomed to survive on the dole of others. Hunting and fishing in the 21st century are not huge money makers. Neither is farming, for that matter. Look how many family farms in non-native communities have gone bankrupt or the children decided not to continue, ending up bought by large corporate farms or simply abandoned to lie fallow or be sold for development.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers but it seems to me that the failures in traditional approaches are obvious. Something very different will have to be done or things will stay forever the same.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Machjo]

Oh, I believe that abuse did occur. I just think that we have to deal with specifics. You mentioned ONE case of a needle through the tongue but I had taken the tone of your original point to mean that it was a common thing!

The CBC link confirms there were indeed residential schools that closed in 1996. It says that there were many instances of abuse. Who's arguing?

What's more important is HOW MANY specific instances of abuse! I agree that one is too many but I find it hard to believe that the majority were mistreated and that the majority of aboriginals can claim the schools "screwed them up".

It is also not logical to blame the entire white race for the actions of some members of the Catholic and Anglican churches. That too would be racist! The only people responsible are the specific individuals who committed the abuse. It makes about as much sense to blame all of 'white' society as it would be to tag ALL aboriginals as alcoholics because you have seen ONE native who was one!

I fully agree with what you say here. The individual instances I'd given were more to show just how extreme the cases could be. One particular violation was quite universal though: forced separation of children from their families with government backing. This was explicitely intended to assimilate the Aboriginals into white culture. That alone shows the lack of respect official instances had for Aboriginal cultures, a lack of respect which was bound to spread down the chain of authority sooner or later, which obviously it did, thus creating an ideal environment for these abuses.

I think we are seeing a very common difference in point of view here. Natives identify themselves in terms of tribes or groups. Non-natives don't! Especially traditional European cultures. We think of ourselves very much as individuals and so we don't feel any collective guilt.

Not true at all. They don't even use the term tribe much themselves, but rather nation. For instance, the First Nations, the Mohawk Nation, etc. That's no different from our notion of Canada's 'Founding Nations'. In fact, from my experience, English Canadians often make more reference to other English-speaking countries (for example, a person going to work in the US, or studying in the UK, or referencing the concept of the Anglosphere), than they do to Quebec unless it has to do Canadian politics. They also tend to communicate more with English-speakers of other countreis than they do with monolingual French-speaking Quebecers, read more British and US newspapers than they do Le Devoir, watch more US and British TV than they do SRC, etc. We find the same pattern among monolingual Canadian speakers of French in their interactions with Frenchmen, Swiss, belgians, Algerians, Camerounians, etc. more than they do with monolingual English-speakers across the Ontario boarder. Our notions of 'nation', essentially a less derogatory concept than 'tribe', are no different. The only difference perhaps is that we might legitimize Europeanist conceptions of nations while trying to delegitimate Aboriginal ones by using different vocabulary for each (e.g. we have nations, but they have tribes). They're well aware of this condescending connotation of the word tribe, which likely explains their use fo the word 'nation' instead.

I know I feel zero identification with some child abuser who ran a residential school. Hang 'em, for all I care. Takes care of repeat offences. I feel the same disconnect with abusers in non-native areas. Hell, I might not even accept them as fellow humans let alone think that we are both of the same "tribe".

If a stranger abuses another stranger, causing that person to suffer severe psychological tauma, though I might not know that victim, it's only natural that I have a duty as a human, even if I'm in no way at fault for the offence, to try to help that person. When I give to charity with no expectation of return, that is a part of that responsibility ot my fellow man. The same applies here. Regardless of who is responsible for this cultural genocide (and it has already officially been acknowledged as such by the Truth Commissions, as there is plenty of evidence that it had official government backing, which is the people in a democracy), we as a people have a duty to try to repair the damage done to their languages and cultures.

Another question would be how long since these abuses occurred? Sooner or later one must break with the past if they are to have any hope of moving forward.

I have never been abused to the extent that these children have been on a large scale (even just being forcibly separated from parents at a young age and forced into a completely different cultural context for assimilative purposes is cruelty in its own right in terms of the emotional scars it's bound to lead, let alone all the other abuses piled onto that for at least some of these children), but can imagine how such abuses can leave deep psychological wounds that, if left untreated, can be passed on from generation to generation. When I'd lived in China, it was interesting to note how China is still recovering from the Opium Wars, let alone the anti-Japanese Wars. Some modern Chinese still hear the abuses that their great grandparents' parents had suffered. And that can only be cured through reconciliation by acknowledging how it had indeed retarded the development of the nation considerably. History follows us. If I should have bene abused as a child to the degree some of these children have, there is the possibility that I could be an emotionally or psychologically unstable parent, thus passing a whole bunch of new baggage to my child, who in turn can pass it on to his child. Let's make no mistake about it. The abuses of the past are still affecting children today through the emotional health of their parents. Cycles are not always easy to break.

Myself, I see residential school abuses and much of the Indian Act to be classic examples of what happens when you allow socialist social engineers free rein to run the lives of a group of people. The tragedies inflicted on many First Nations people are classic examples of what those wingnuts will do if given half a chance. Their motives may have been noble but when it came to actual implementation of their screwy ideas they were revealed as true "fruit loops".

That had nothing to do with socialism (though I'mnot fond of socialism myself mind you), but cutural imperialism.

The saddest thing of all is that for many reserves I don't see any hope unless they make a dramatic break from their cycle of "being victims". The Indian Act should be abolished. Give aboriginals the same property rights as any other Canadian. The traditional system of reserves was supposedly designed to allow tribes to preserve their traditional ways of life. That was fine in 1850 perhaps but in the 21st century the idea is just no longer possible. Nor I believe would most aboriginals want to opt out of modern life, with its technology, medicines and conveniences.

And what about the international treaties we'd signed with them? I can agree with abolishing the Indian Act. In fact, many Aboriginals themselves, or at least the ones I knew, agreed. They thought the Indian Act is racist and paternalistic at best.

Bear in mind though that some of the Aboriginals I've seen (and not all quacks; one of them is a successful businesswoman) don't identify themselves as Canadians except as an administrative legal status but nothing more, and feel that the reason Canada still has outstanding international (yes, I did say international) obligations with the Aboriginals is due to the occupied status of Aboriginal lands. Some of them (I have no idea what percentage, but I have met some so they do exist) see themselves literally as occupied nations whose treaties are yet to be respected by the courts. The businesswoman I'd met woudl actually like the treaties upheld with those lands becoming completely autonomous regions. Not necessarily handouts, but simply compensation for legitimate loss due to abuses committed under federal authority. Compensation is not handouts, but a ligitimate greavance for damage incurred.

The problem is that living on a reserve under the Indian Act severely limits an individual's ability to earn his own way in the modern world. If he can't start his own business that is self-sustaining then he is trapped to live on a perpetual government "dole". How can a "sovereign nation" exist if it can only glean income from another government's monies, including those from lawsuits and land claims?

Societies can only survive if they can create their own wealth. Otherwise they are doomed to survive on the dole of others. Hunting and fishing in the 21st century are not huge money makers. Neither is farming, for that matter. Look how many family farms in non-native communities have gone bankrupt or the children decided not to continue, ending up bought by large corporate farms or simply abandoned to lie fallow or be sold for development.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers but it seems to me that the failures in traditional approaches are obvious. Something very different will have to be done or things will stay forever the same.

Interesting. Some Aboriginals I've talked to agree that the Indian Act must be scrapped, and see it as paternalistic and imperialistic at best. One of them had come up with a conspiracy theory about it. She's a successful businesswoman so can't be too loopy. But her theory was that the government feared a better educated Aboriginal community since it would likely become increasingly aggressive in international fora to try to pressure the Canadian govenrment to fulfil its international legally binding treaties with the FNs. She'd also argued that many Aboriginals don't identify themsleves as Canadians but rather as occupied peoples (from my observations, there seems to be a split in opinion among the ones I've met on this, some think they're hyphenated Canadians, others that they're not Canadian at all but have the treaty rights to various lands). Though I think her idea is likely wrong (I have a hard time imagining that the govnerment would intentionally try to keep the First Nations down), we can't deny that racism against them is widespread and as such it's not inconceivable that the government, or more accurately some persons within the government, could choose to keep the First Nations down as a matter of national security. After all, we're not as likely to take a 'drunken indian' as seriously as a society of aboriginal entrepreneurs.Again, I don't really buy into her theory, but it was an interesting one none-the less and it does beg the question, why would the federal government chose to keep the First Nations down.

[Smallc]

Why should any province have more than one official language? For any regional entity to function effectively, it needs a common language

I see no evidence of that. New Brunswick seems to function just fine, as do many Manitoba municipalities and Ontario counties.

[jbg]

I see no evidence of that. New Brunswick seems to function just fine, as do many Manitoba municipalities and Ontario counties.

Functioning in two languages is rather expensive for one. For another why do we want to delude linguistic minorities that they can effectively get ahead in life without learning the language of their area?

The only reason I think Quebec needs to be bi-lingual is that Montreal is a major world city and has large English-speaking areas.

[Machjo]

I see no evidence of that. New Brunswick seems to function just fine, as do many Manitoba municipalities and Ontario counties.

I don't know about New Brunswick, but I do know that official bilingualism in Ontario is limited to the municipalities. Ontario has but one official language at the provincial level.

[Machjo]

Functioning in two languages is rather expensive for one. For another why do we want to delude linguistic minorities that they can effectively get ahead in life without learning the language of their area?

The only reason I think Quebec needs to be bi-lingual is that Montreal is a major world city and has large English-speaking areas.

The Municipality of Montreal is Bilingual. Why should we waste so much money province-wide when most of the Anglophones are limited to Montreal Island?

Ideally, any level of government should strive to limit itself to one official language at most, though granted politics might get in the way as we try to choose a language all can agree to. In some cases it's been done (Most provinces and municipalities in Canada are officially or defacto monolingual). Really, it's only the Federal government, a few municipalities, Nunavut and New Brunswick which officially recognize more than one official language. In the case of Nunavut, it's four.

[CANADIEN]

The Municipality of Montreal is Bilingual. Why should we waste so much money province-wide when most of the Anglophones are limited to Montreal Island?

Why? because other English-speaking Canadians in Quebec have rights.

[CANADIEN]

I don't know about New Brunswick, but I do know that official bilingualism in Ontario is limited to the municipalities. Ontario has but one official language at the provincial level.

Technically, it does not have an official language. And provincial services are available in French in most of the Province.