A Lesson From US on Why Official Bi-Lingualism is Terrible Idea

[August1991]

I don't know where to begin in correcting the misrepresentations and errors in your post, jbg.

The difference is that we have ended up as a proud, solid nation. Yours has wound up as a country with a pale self-image, and one constantly riven by "separation" referenda...

That quote is an invitation to a Canadian nationalist to start criticizing the failures of your own country, jbg - and what exactly is a "pale, self-image" anyway? Huh?

I admire the United States and its basic ideals, ideals which I believe are still very much alive in the United States today. I also happen to like Americans as individuals. We are fortunate to share the continent with the US, and I think Americans should be grateful to have Canadians to their north.

Nevertheless, about 600,000 soldiers were killed in the US Civil War. It was a major failure of statesmanship. Canada has never known carnage of that kind. I'd say that's a major success of statesmanship - and evidence of the fundamental civilization of ordinary French and English Canadians.

As to the OP and the question of a bilingual state, let me turn the tables and put Canada's situation into an American context for you. About 15% of Americans are black: Americans of African origin.

Your suggestion to French-Canadians to learn English is tantamount to telling African-Americans to become white.

[Argus]

You may be right about that statement being utter nonensense in parts of Quebec. But, pray tell, explain how that justifies laws which, under threat of fines or jail, prohibit "apostrophes" in signs, i.e. "Bob's Radiator", regulate at all what language privately operated signage is in, or provides for French-only signs on major highways.

That has nothing to do with the federal policy of official bilingualism.

Oh? This suggests you actually KNOW what the federal official bilingualism policies are, and their results. I find that hard to believe.

[Argus]

It is quite amusing watching people like md00 and jbg take Quebec to task for doing the very things to protect its identity that, in another context, those posters would applaud.

Something else i find amusing is watching people shrug off the things Quebec does while attacking those who suggest a similar tack on our part as vile, hateful bigots.

Or, as August does, respect Quebec's long history of bigotry and anti-English laws, and the arrogant nationalism and culture which inspires and continues this, while dismissing any concerns from Anglophobes as "simplistic".

[Argus]

I don't know where to begin in correcting the misrepresentations and errors in your post, jbg.

The difference is that we have ended up as a proud, solid nation. Yours has wound up as a country with a pale self-image, and one constantly riven by "separation" referenda...

That quote is an invitation to a Canadian nationalist to start criticizing the failures of your own country, jbg - and what exactly is a "pale, self-image" anyway? Huh?

You don't have to go far to find that. Many people even deny Canada has a culture. Many others, typically CBC lovers, when asked about what is great about Canada will cite things like health care(?!) and welfare, and our "openness" to the immigration and foreign cultures - which simply means we accept every other world culture as being at least equal to our crappy non-existent homegrown one.

Nevertheless, about 600,000 soldiers were killed in the US Civil War. It was a major failure of statesmanship. Canada has never known carnage of that kind. I'd say that's a major success of statesmanship - and evidence of the fundamental civilization of ordinary French and English Canadians.

Nonsense. The US was a free nation at a time when such things happened more. Canada never had the freedom to engage in a civil war back then because we weren't a free nation. We were far more sparsely populated, and didn't gain our freedom until the cusp of the twentieth century, and even then the UK was a huge big brother watching everything we did. No civil war would have lasted because British troops would have put it down.

I think his real point is they had it out, and settled issues, and the US is now a much more united country, without the same regional tensions, jealousies and outright hatreds as exist in Canada.

Your suggestion to French-Canadians to learn English is tantamount to telling African-Americans to become white.

Illogic doesn't work very well as a debating tactic. Black's cannot physically become White, but many Francophones have learned English.

[Remiel]

How can you say that the United States was a "free" nation at the time of the Civil War, given that one of the issues was slavery? Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

[Argus]

How can you say that the United States was a "free" nation at the time of the Civil War, given that one of the issues was slavery? Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

It was free to do what it wanted without intervention from a higher authority. Canada was not. If it makes you happy, strike "free" and substitute "independent".

[August1991]

Argus, you can be as thick as a brick sometimes.

Nevertheless, about 600,000 soldiers were killed in the US Civil War. It was a major failure of statesmanship. Canada has never known carnage of that kind. I'd say that's a major success of statesmanship - and evidence of the fundamental civilization of ordinary French and English Canadians.

Nonsense. The US was a free nation at a time when such things happened more. Canada never had the freedom to engage in a civil war back then because we weren't a free nation. We were far more sparsely populated, and didn't gain our freedom until the cusp of the twentieth century, and even then the UK was a huge big brother watching everything we did. No civil war would have lasted because British troops would have put it down.

I didn't mean that Canada should have had a civil war in 1860 - I'm saying that we have successfully avoided a civil war in the past 40 years or so.

I largely credit the basic civility of French Canadians and English Canadians alike, as well as some wise statesmanship.

These features were all lacking in the US in the lead up to the US Civil War.

I think his real point is they had it out, and settled issues, and the US is now a much more united country, without the same regional tensions, jealousies and outright hatreds as exist in Canada.

First of all, a civil war is far more horrific than "having it out". Secondly, you are mistaken if you think the US Civil War solved all of America's internal divisions. I recently drove through South Carolina and the consequences of Sherman's march to the sea are still present. Racial integration is far, far from being accomplished although I'll admit that few countries in the world have made such a determined effort to achieve it.

Your suggestion to French-Canadians to learn English is tantamount to telling African-Americans to become white.

Illogic doesn't work very well as a debating tactic. Black's cannot physically become White, but many Francophones have learned English.

Yes, and I suppose after several generations, blacks would be white too.

Many people even deny Canada has a culture. Many others, typically CBC lovers, when asked about what is great about Canada will cite things like health care(?!) and welfare, and our "openness" to the immigration and foreign cultures - which simply means we accept every other world culture as being at least equal to our crappy non-existent homegrown one.

Most people in Quebec, and for that matter Newfoundland, wouldn't agree but then Argus you'd characterize them as bigots or racists or something.

The simple fact of the matter is that to live in society means living along side people who are different. You can pass laws forcing other people to change their social habits to be like you, and these may be successful to a degree, but other people are going to be different regardless.

We don't share households but we do share our political decisions. A federal system is a good way to accomodate people who are different from one another.

[normanchateau]

They do seem to take a more regionalized approach than us

Do more research into the issue and stop trying to push your far left, self-hating, Liberal Ignatieff agenda.

So supporting bilingualism is a "far left, self-loathing, Liberal Ignatieff agenda"?

Now what do you suppose would be the position on bilingualism of a far right, self-adoring, principled, social conservative?

Here's the position of the Prime Minister before he decided to abandon yet another principle and declare that the Quebecois are a nation:

"After all, enforced national bilingualism in this country isn’t mere policy. It has attained the status of a religion. It’s a dogma which one is supposed to accept without question.…Make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it is less bilingual today than it has ever been...As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions."

Stephen Harper, Calgary Sun, May 6, 2001

Source:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper

[mikedavid00]

"After all, enforced national bilingualism in this country isn’t mere policy. It has attained the status of a religion. It’s a dogma which one is supposed to accept without question.…Make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it is less bilingual today than it has ever been...As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions."

Stephen Harper, Calgary Sun, May 6, 2001

Source:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper

Thanks for the quote.

I once said that I heard he was very 'anti-french' (i meant the language) and I was dismissed. Again thanks for the quote so I can again brag I was right =) hehe just kidding.

I agree with him fully. And this wasn't too long ago he said this either.

This reveals a bigger picture of Harper. Making those statements really show how he does indeed understand Canada's problems.

I think everything he's doing right now is a show.. or I hope it is. I really want him to get a majority.

[normanchateau]

"After all, enforced national bilingualism in this country isn’t mere policy. It has attained the status of a religion. It’s a dogma which one is supposed to accept without question.…Make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it is less bilingual today than it has ever been...As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions."

Stephen Harper, Calgary Sun, May 6, 2001

Source:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper

Thanks for the quote.

This reveals a bigger picture of Harper. I think everything he's doing right now is a show...

Sometimes I find it difficult to find areas of mutual agreement but in this particular case, you and I are on exactly the same page.

[Argus]

I didn't mean that Canada should have had a civil war in 1860 - I'm saying that we have successfully avoided a civil war in the past 40 years or so.

I largely credit the basic civility of French Canadians and English Canadians alike, as well as some wise statesmanship.

These features were all lacking in the US in the lead up to the US Civil War.

Nonsense.It wasn't a lack of civility which brought about the civil war it was insurmountable cultural and economic differences. And the reason Canada hasn't had a "civil war" is because we're past the time in the world when we in the west settle such arguments with war. The reason we haven't split up is the tendency among liberal Anglos to bow to French whining. Or perhaps you can list for me the many compromises Francophones have made over the last forty years - other than not separating. In fact, I'd actually like a few examples of French compromise and civility, if you please. I'd really like to see that.

Your suggestion to French-Canadians to learn English is tantamount to telling African-Americans to become white.

Illogic doesn't work very well as a debating tactic. Black's cannot physically become White, but many Francophones have learned English.

Yes, and I suppose after several generations, blacks would be white too.

I take it science wasn't one of your favourite subjects at school.

[Argus]

"After all, enforced national bilingualism in this country isn’t mere policy. It has attained the status of a religion. It’s a dogma which one is supposed to accept without question.…Make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it is less bilingual today than it has ever been...As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions."

Stephen Harper, Calgary Sun, May 6, 2001

Which aspect of that would you like to try and argue? It was indeed designed to promote unity, and failed. It is incredibly expensive. It is incredibly inefficient. Canada is not bilingual anywhere I can think of really. It is French in Quebec and English everywhere else. And, due to the fact few people who support it actually know what it involves, and simply believe it means serving both linguistic groups in their own language, attacking it is seen as attacking Francophones.

[normanchateau]

"After all, enforced national bilingualism in this country isn’t mere policy. It has attained the status of a religion. It’s a dogma which one is supposed to accept without question.…Make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it is less bilingual today than it has ever been...As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions."

Stephen Harper, Calgary Sun, May 6, 2001

Which aspect of that would you like to try and argue? It was indeed designed to promote unity, and failed. It is incredibly expensive. It is incredibly inefficient. Canada is not bilingual anywhere I can think of really. It is French in Quebec and English everywhere else. And, due to the fact few people who support it actually know what it involves, and simply believe it means serving both linguistic groups in their own language, attacking it is seen as attacking Francophones.

If Stephen Harper goes into the next election with his Calgary Sun statements on bilingualism as part of his new political platform, I'll vote for him...a pledge I expect that I'll never have to honour. But you and I know that Harper has abandoned many of his former principles in his insatiable quest for a majority government. I suppose his supporters would like to believe that Harper retains some of his earlier positions but how can they be certain that's the case?

Take Harper's flip flop on medicare, for example:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?sto...050430091919834

Are we to believe that Harper has abandoned all of his previous positions on medicare and the Canada Health Act? Or is his current position on health care one he maintains merely because he believes it is necessary to being re-elected?

[mikedavid00]

Or is his current position on health care one he maintains merely because he believes it is necessary to being re-elected?

Bingo.

[normanchateau]

Or is his current position on health care one he maintains merely because he believes it is necessary to being re-elected?

Bingo.

Thank you!