Ignatieff calls bilingualism the essence of Canada

[Smallc]

Natives play the largest part in any history book that is taught in school today. That said, they are not a large language groups, but rather many small ones.

[Machjo]

Natives play the largest part in any history book that is taught in school today. That said, they are not a large language groups, but rather many small ones.

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.

[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?

[Smallc]

Things have changed...at least here...in fact we spend too much time in the early years and we don't get nearly far enough forward.

[Machjo]

Things have changed...at least here...in fact we spend too much time in the early years and we don't get nearly far enough forward.

I was studying in Victoria, BC. Maybe a provincial problem?

As for how much emphasis on the distant and near past, that's another matter. But regardless of how much time we spend in the classroom studying our pre-contact history, as long as our history books teach it through european eyes (i.e. we learn European history until Contact, and then start learning about the America's after that), we will continue to be foreigners on our own land.

If we want Canada to truly have its own identity, then any pre-contact history should be taught through the eyes of the land itself (i.e. our crossing over the Bearing strait 30 - 50 thousand years ago, the development of Aztec mathematics, astronomy, architecture and its influence on other cultures throughout the Americas, our eventual discovery of the white man, and eventually of the world, and our history since).

I'm not First Nations myself by the way (well, a little blood, but no culture). However, it should be viewed as no more strange for a white child in the classroom reading about how 'we' discovered the white man as it should be for the Aboriginal reading how 'we' discovered the New World.

It would simply require a redefinition of 'we'.

For example, a converted Mulism would not find it strange in the least to discuss 'our' history and how 'we' started to grow in the Middle East, and about 'our' religion.Same with a Christian, etc. In fact, even if raised Christian, once converted, he'd find it quite natural to refer to Christian history as 'your' history, unless he thinks of it in an Abrahamic sense, in which case it's all 'our' history.

Why could we not think of 'our' Canadian history in the same light. If born in Canada, then 'we' are converted North Americans, regardless of race, and as such share a common North American history dating back 30 to 50 thousand years, not an imported European history going back only a few hundred years, essentially uprooting our history and making it foreign to us. If we should think of it that way, then that would present our European roots as foreign, which would also increase respect for the First Nations' languages and cultures as part of 'our' own lost history as the people of this land, and possibly a desire to learn the local indigenous language among more people.

This would also help to fight racism, since then our identity would be defined by the history of a landmass we share in common, as opposed to a foreign history and culture imposed upon the First Nations and Inuit.

It's all a matter of the eyes through which we look at ourselves. Are we as Canadians, regardless of race, a people who share a common land mass having a human precense over millenia, or are we a people either immigrated or assimilated to foreing European cultures, with the Aboriginals as pesky pests who don't want to conform?

In short, who are 'we'. What is 'we'. Who is included in this 'we', and when the the history of this' 'we' begin on the north American Continent? And who is included in this 'we'?

[Smallc]

I was studying in Victoria, BC. Maybe a provincial problem?

Since education is a provincial matter, probably. We spend much of our time in Manitoba learning about aboriginal history. There's nothing wrong with it, there just isn't enough time in the school year for everything though.

[Machjo]

Since education is a provincial matter, probably. We spend much of our time in Manitoba learning about aboriginal history. There's nothing wrong with it, there just isn't enough time in the school year for everything though.

I agree that we can't spend our school days just studying history. My simple question was whether the conception of Canada in your history books were that 'we' are Europeans who'd simply discovered the America's and just got off the boat this morning so to speak, or if 'we' are a people dating back millennia and discovered the white man this morning so to speak.

In BC, we're Europeans who'd discovered the America's.

But I rememebr going to Catholic school in Ontario as a child before moving to BC. And I remember there that there was more emphasis on the Aboriginals, but can't remember the details too clearly though.

I'm still not sure what to think of it, but it would seem important to me that we have a clear united definition of 'we-ness' nationwide, whatever it might be. Does our hisotry stem from Europe, of from the America's?

In the end, it's really a matter of choice, depending on whether we think of ourselves as transplanted Europeans or immigrants to a new land willing to share in the history of this land.

[Smallc]

In BC, we're Europeans who'd discovered the America's.

Not here. our history starts with the aboriginal creation myths. It goes forward from there to today (although we usually run out of time in the 17 - 1800s....sadly).

[Machjo]

Not here. our history starts with the aboriginal creation myths. It goes forward from there to today (although we usually run out of time in the 17 - 1800s....sadly).

Interesting. I'd be curious to see how such history education influences our perceptions of ourselves, our history, and who we are. I wonder if there have been any studies linking our historical worldview as presented in our history classes with how we perceive our Canadian identity as adults.

I can imagine that an adult Inuit who speaks neither English nor French would have a radically different perception of what Canada is than a bilingual French-English speaker, or a unilingual French speaker, or a unilingual English speaker, or one who'se studied an endoterritorial view of history vs one who'd studied a eurocentric view of history, etc.

I'm ure all these people would have radically different views of what Canada is. kind of like blind mice feeling an elephant. We're all blind mice touching a different part, none of us really understanding what Canada is.

[Shady]

Ignatieff is a moron. Canada's essence isn't bilingualism, it's freedom. I'm already sick of that pandering jackass. Go back to Europe, or at the very least America.

[Smallc]

Ignatieff is a moron. Canada's essence isn't bilingualism, it's freedom.

I think you have Canada confused with that other country you spend so much time on. Freedom is part of who we are, sure, but so is bilingualism. I don't completely agree with Ignatieff, but I like where he's going, talking about us as one people but yet many. That is really the essence of being Canadian...of course, that's only my opinion.

[Shady]

I think you have Canada confused with that other country you spend so much time on. Freedom is part of who we are, sure, but so is bilingualism. I don't completely agree with Ignatieff, but I like where he's going, talking about us as one people but yet many. That is really the essence of being Canadian...of course, that's only my opinion.

Without freedom in this country, nothing else matters. Not even bilingualism.

[Smallc]

Without freedom in this country, nothing else matters. Not even bilingualism.

There are certainly other things than freedom that matter though. Freedom is pretty much supposed to be a given in Canada...so we focus on the other things I think.

[Machjo]

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

[Argus]

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.

And just what kind of additional history did you want to add? North American natives didn't do much of anything worth recording - not that they were literate so as to record anything they did anyway.

[Smallc]

So you have no idea what you're talnking about, then? They certainly weren't as advanced as Europeans, but your statement is completely untrue.

[Argus]

So you have no idea what you're talnking about, then? They certainly weren't as advanced as Europeans, but your statement is completely untrue.

There was precious little going on for the centuries before the Europeans arrived, at least in the northern part of the continent.

Civilization never developed to the extent it did in Europe. There were no Rome's here, no Athens or Egypt or China. There were a few local empires in the south, but they were always doomed to collapse due to the absence of the kind of animals which could be domesticated. Ie, without transport animals (no horses, no camels, no oxen) it was impossible to move supplies any great distance. There was also virtually no domesticated food animals (actually, none so far as I'm aware) which made it extremely difficult to feed large numbers of people without enormous effort. And because of the enormous effort it took to feed people there wasn't the time for science and art to thrive and spread.

People tend to forget that horses, cattle, sheep and chickens were all introduced by Europeans and most have no idea how crucial they were in the advancement of human civilizations.

[Machjo]

And just what kind of additional history did you want to add? North American natives didn't do much of anything worth recording - not that they were literate so as to record anything they did anyway.

Well that made acquisition alright then, eh?

Some of their history would certainly have passed down from generation to generation orally. Add to that that their culture itself would tell us alot of their history.

[capricorn]

Some of their history would certainly have passed down from generation to generation orally.

In my own life experience, oral history often starts as a rumour or conversely, it ends up as a rumour. Some refer to them as tall tales.

[Machjo]

In my own life experience, oral history often starts as a rumour or conversely, it ends up as a rumour. Some refer to them as tall tales.

And this is all a valid reason to abandon the learning of any North American history before Europeans came?

[capricorn]

Lighten up, machjo.

[benny]

Agreed.

Settling a worldwide equalization formula will require a kind of triangulation where the three angles will be two of the most powerful former Empires (English and French) and the rest of the World. It is here where the bilingualism of Canada can save the World.

[Machjo]

Settling a worldwide equalization formula will require a kind of triangulation where the three angles will be two of the most powerful former Empires (English and French) and the rest of the World. It is here where the bilingualism of Canada can save the World.

I'm sorry, I'm not following what you mean. Could you elaborate?

[Machjo]

Lighten up, machjo.

I'm vegan already, and thin enough. How much lighter would you like me to get?

[benny]

I'm sorry, I'm not following what you mean. Could you elaborate?

Putting in place a universal equalization formula will require discovering a transition from competition to cooperation or, in other words, from negotiation to deliberation or from tactical maneuverings to rational deliberations. This can only be achieved, I think, after a period of agonizing exchanges like the one we have seen, inside the United Nations just before the start of the US invasion of Iraq, between France (Dominique de Villepin) and the USA ambassadors.

http://www.un.int/france/documents_francai...france_irak.htm