Rationale behind notion of 'two founding races'...

[Machjo]

'We should point out here that the Commission will not examine cultures the question of the Indians and the Eskimos . Our terms of reference contain no allusion to Canada's native populations. They speak of "two founding races," namely Canadians of Br

'We should point out here that the Commission will not examine cultures the question of the Indians and the Eskimos . Our terms of reference contain no allusion to Canada's native populations. They speak of "two founding races," namely Canadians of British and French origin, and "other ethnic groups," but mention neither the Indians nor the Eskimos. Since it is obvious that these two groups do not form part of the "founding races," as the phrase is used in the terms of reference, it would logically be necessary to include them under the heading "other ethnic groups ." Yet it is clear that the term "other ethnic groups" means those peoples of diverse origins who came to Canada during or after the founding of the Canadian state and that it does not include the first inhabitants of this country.'

Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Book I, Paragraph 21

Considering that the recommendations of Book I of this report are the foundation on which the Official Languages Act and later the language provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights are established, is it appropriate for Canadians to continue to laud this Commission and its work especially in light of this:

'First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools. Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools and others never returned home.

'The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on Aboriginal culture, heritage and language … We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this.'

Stephen Harper, 2008, Statement of Apology to Survivors of the Residential School System

Is it not time to rescind the languge provisions of the Constitution at least, and maybe even the Official Languages Act, or at the very least call for the establishment of a new royal commission on languages so as to identify the racial, ethnic, and linguistic prejudices of our current laws and propose a more just language policy for the residential school era?

Any thoughts on this?

itish and French origin, and "other ethnic groups," but mention neither the Indians nor the Eskimos. Since it is obvious that these two groups do not form part of the "founding races," as the phrase is used in the terms of reference, it would logically be necessary to include them under the heading "other ethnic groups ." Yet it is clear that the term "other ethnic groups" means those peoples of diverse origins who came to Canada during or after the founding of the Canadian state and that it does not include the first inhabitants of this country.'

Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Book I, Paragraph 21

Considering that the recommendations of Book I of this report are the foundation on which the Official Languages Act and later the language provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights are established, is it appropriate for Canadians to continue to laud this Commission and its work especially in light of this:

'First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools. Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools and others never returned home.

'The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on Aboriginal culture, heritage and language … We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this.'

Stephen Harper, 2008, Statement of Apology to Survivors of the Residential School System

Is it not time to rescind the languge provisions of the Constitution at least, and maybe even the Official Languages Act, or at the very least call for the establishment of a new royal commission on languages so as to identify the racial, ethnic, and linguistic prejudices of our current laws and propose a more just language policy for the residential school era?

Any thoughts on this?

[kimmy]

I don't understand the question. Are you saying that Harper's apology regarding residential schools has relevance to Canada's official languages? I don't get the connection.

-k

[Machjo]

I don't understand the question. Are you saying that Harper's apology regarding residential schools has relevance to Canada's official languages? I don't get the connection.

-k

Yes.

If you read the first quote from the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the founding document of official bilingualism today, it becomes quite clear that the prejudices that gave rise to official bilingualism are the same that gave rise to the residential school system almost a hundred years earlier albeit in an incomparably more extreme form. Let's not forget either that at the time of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the residential school system was at its height in terms of number of students, was just starting to wind down, and was also the time fo the sixties scoop, leading to a further slowing down of the winding down of the system. In fact, Book II of the report expresses no concern over the residential school system other than its cost and the goal of integrating indigenous students into the provincial system, essentially no more than a further extension of the government's assimilationist intentions.

Now if we consider that such a document is the foundation on which the house of the Official Languages Act and the language provisions of the Constitution are based, does it not then make sense that revisiting the founding principles of official bilingualism should be a natrual part of any sincere process of reconciliation?

[Smallc]

[Demosthenes26]

Agreed

[jacee]

Now if we consider that such a document is the foundation on which the house of the Official Languages Act and the language provisions of the Constitution are based, does it not then make sense that revisiting the founding principles of official bilingualism should be a natrual part of any sincere process of reconciliation?

No.

Canada is a country of three founding peoples and three law traditions: Aboriginal, French, British.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/discover/section-05.asp

There are many Indigenous languages and dialects.

We have two official languages, and people are otherwise free to speak any language they wish.

And no, we don't need a brand new 'common' language.

What we need for reconciliation is the whole truth - the Harper govt to immediately release the documents they're hiding.

Edited August 5, 2013 by jacee