Would you support legislating a social domain for Canada's indigenous languages withi

[Machjo]

I'd like to know how many here would be willing to support legislation guaranteeing a particular social domain to Canada's indigenous languages?

For those who aren't familiar with the concept of linguistic domain, it means a particular social context that is reserved for a particular language. Also known as diglossia (a situation in which everyone speaks the same two languages, with neither language competing with the other, each one owning its own domain, its own piece of the pie so to speak).

We find examples of this all over the world. In Arabia, we normally speak Modern Standard Arabic with foreigners or officially, but the local dialect with family,friends and compatriots. In fact, the same two persons might speak to one another in Modern Standard Arabic when speaking to each other formally, but as soon as one interrupts the business conversation and asks how the family is doing, he might suddenly switch to th elocal dialect. To use either of these dialects in the domain of the other would sound strange or out fo place.

We find something similar with Quechua and Spanish in Peru. Spanish is the language of education, business and government, while Quechua is the language of family and friends. Again, to use either language in the domain of the other would sound strange.

In the case of Canada's indigenous languages, let's suppose the government legislated that for all local government positions, all other qualifications being equal, speakers fo the local indigenous language would get hiring priority, as a means of promoting the indigenous language and culture. In this case, the local indigenous language could gradually become viewed over time as the language of local government (i.e. that would be its domain), with English or French still dominating other parts of society (their domains).

Would you support such a concept?

 

[taxslave]

If I understand your definition correctly no. We already have one more official language than we need. I think we would run into a translating nightmare. In our area there are very few left who speak any of the native languages to start with. You will also run into the perhaps unintended problem of reverse racial discrimination. Jobs must be handed out strictly on the basis of merit, especially when it is taxpayers money involved. This is too much like social tinkering. I also do not agree with special laws or the application of the laws based on race or religion.
I think what you are getting at is having natives take more control over their own affairs and help preserve their culture, which is good but this is not the way to do it.
In my opinion multiculturalism is a bad idea as it creates hyphenated Canadians. In this respect I like the US melting pot better. I consider my self as a Canadian first and perhaps adding of Cherokee/British decent but never as a Cherokee-Canadian.

 

[tracy]

No. Just one more wasteful government program if you ask me.

 

[Scott Free]

Why would the idea need my support? If you want to speak a certain language go ahead. What I won't support is another damn language on my cereal box.

 

[Machjo]

If I understand your definition correctly no. We already have one more official language than we need.

This wouldn't be at the federal level though, but the local level only.

"I think we would run into a translating nightmare."

The idea I had was not that the language would actually have to be used in government communications, but merely that those who know the local indigenous language get hiring priority if all other qualifications are equal. The sole objective would be to raise the market values of these languages so as to encourage more people to learn them.

"In our area there are very few left who speak any of the native languages to start with."

That would be the point of the policy after all. Is there something you'd missed concering the very intended objective of the policy?

"You will also run into the perhaps unintended problem of reverse racial discrimination."

That happens with English and French already, doesn't it? If you require immigrants to pass an English test, then clearly many Britons, Australians, New Zealanders, Americans, Sauth Africans and Irish would have an advantage over other nationalies, and most of them happen to be caucasian. The same applies with the French test with many Frenchmen, Belgians, Swiss, etc. Most of them are caucasian too. Of course we'll find many in former colonies too, but that still puts former colonists at an advantage over others too. So no matter how you cut, the advantage still leans first off to native speakers, and secondly to former colonies, with the rest being most disadvantaged. Now we could argue that there's a difference in that few non-natives know native languages on their own soil, but would that not reflect racism against natives more than it would racism in favour of natives? After all, just like French and English, the law is based on knowledge, not race. Isn't it racist to suggest that our ethnic language is not racist, but that theirs is? Isn't that a double standard?

"Jobs must be handed out strictly on the basis of merit, especially when it is taxpayers money involved."

That's an alternative I could agree to; have no official language in Canada, and schools could teach in whatever language the local market can support. But if you support an official language, then you're contradicting yourself by saying that it should be only on the basis of merit. In Nunavut, many haven't learnt the English language well. In other words, experts working there, if they must deal with the local population, should have their knowledge of Inuktitut taken into account. Same would have to apply to French in Quebec, and possibly even Chinese in parts of Vancouver.

"This is too much like social tinkering."

What government policy isn't social tinkering? Do you support anarchism? When the government legislates universal compulsory education for example, that is a much more significant form of social tinkering than what I'm proposing here, which is quite mild in comparison. So if you should support government involvement in social policies as intrusive as universal compulsory education, but oppose this, then clearly your argument has nothing to do with 'social tinkering' which you're using as an excuse (unless, like I said, you voted Libertarian last election?). Could the race that English is associated with vs. that which native languages are associated with have something to do with it?

"I also do not agree with special laws or the application of the laws based on race or religion."

I refer you back to my comment English and French requirements for immigrants above. Language is an acquired knowledge, not a race or religion. Now if we're talking about associations with the language, then English and French are both associated with the white race and Christian religion. So are you suggesting that it's OK if it's white Christian but not if it's associated with Native American spirituality? Another double standard based on race.

"I think what you are getting at is having natives take more control over their own affairs and help preserve their culture, which is good but this is not the way to do it."

So what would be youre recommendation exactly. I don't mind your criticizing my ideas, but please offer an alternative solution too. It's easy to criticize without offering an alternative.

"In my opinion multiculturalism is a bad idea as it creates hyphenated Canadians."

This would have nothing to do with race officially, but knowledge of the language. If an Arab should have bothered to learn the local indigenous language, and a native Indian hadn't, then guess who'd pass the test.

"In this respect I like the US melting pot better."

The US federal government has no official language, so its documents sometimes get translated into many languages to meet various needs. Just visit the website for usenglish.org. They are pushing to make English the official language of the US. So clearly they're not too happy with the melting-pot principle either. The original idea behind the principle was that people would assimilate naturally. That works if English speakers form the majority in every local community in the country. But if even one community has an alternative majority, the English-speaking population will assimilate to them. Owing to the fact that parts of the US were once parts of Spain, and that their descendents have remained in the US, combined with massive migration form Mexico, has caused the US melting-pot to falter. But I could still agree with you if you wanted to go to the current British principle of no official language (though even in Britain now there has started to be talk of making English official).

"I consider my self as a Canadian first and perhaps adding of Cherokee/British decent but never as a Cherokee-Canadian"

You can do that and still speak English. Why could you not do that with an Indian language. In fact anyone who knows his history would agree that those languages are more Canadian than either French or English.

 

[Machjo]

No. Just one more wasteful government program if you ask me.

It wouldn't cost the government one red cent. All that would happen is that when two candidates are equally qualified for the job, hiring priority would go the the one who speaks an Indian language. No training costs, no extra pay, nothing, nada, zilch. What waste are you taliking about?

In fact, this could even save the taxpayer money! Right now, we have to spend money to try to maintain Indian languages on reservations that don't always have high rates of employment. Yet the only way for them to preserve their cultures for the long term is to remain on these reservations. This leads to a culture of dependency and segragation (for those of you who don't know your world history, South African Apartheid was based on the Canadian reservation system!).

With this new system, they could preserve their cultures off the reservations by working (and consequently paying taxes). In fact, this would integrate the preservation of their languages into a working environment so that they wouldn't feel like they need to make a choice between their culture and good employment (in fact, employment would become key to preserving their culture!). It would allow them to integrate without assimilating, thus re-introducing a work ethic in their culture that existed before the white man came and threw them onto the reservations. Strange that, reservations didn't exist before mass immigration krept in.

 

[Machjo]

Why would the idea need my support? If you want to speak a certain language go ahead. What I won't support is another damn language on my cereal box.

Cereal boxes are federal jurisdiction, so this proposal would have no impact on cereal boxes whatever.

 

[Praxius]

I already don't like the idea of our government restricting some positions to people who can speak both languages (if someone only speaks english or only french, they can not apply)

If someone who only speaks one language can do the job better then someone who can speak two, then they should be given the job.

If there is a problem with translation or communication, then hire a translator, or a representative for the other language you don't speak, or use some digital form of communication when needed.

You have politicians already making speeches and meetings usually in one language (or mostly in one language) and usually it's translated for those who don't speak the language anyways.

This approach, as I somewhat understand it, that you are proposing, seems to go further down the road I already don't like.

I don't mind that we have two official languages, but so long as you know how to speak one of them, should be more then enough to qualify you for a job (With of course the right education and experience for the job)

So far in my life, I have never had to use any of the french I learned in high school.... in fact I forgot 98% of it all in my first year of college.

As it goes socially in regards to how we communicate with one another..... the current system seems to work just fine for now.

 

[Machjo]

As it goes socially in regards to how we communicate with one another..... the current system seems to work just fine for now.

Statistics suggest that all but four of our indigenous languages are in danger of extinction. So if that's the case, clearly our current system isn't working too fine right now. Oh, I forgot. It's not my language, so hwy should I care?

 

[Scott Free]

Cereal boxes are federal jurisdiction, so this proposal would have no impact on cereal boxes whatever.

Then I say go ahead! Speak as many languages as you like.

 

[tracy]

Statistics suggest that all but four of our indigenous languages are in danger of extinction. So if that's the case, clearly our current system isn't working too fine right now. Oh, I forgot. It's not my language, so hwy should I care?

Actually, I would like an answer to that question. If even the members of a language group don't see it as important enough to keep it alive, why should our government invest resources in doing so?

 

[Machjo]

Actually, I would like an answer to that question. If even the members of a language group don't see it as important enough to keep it alive, why should our government invest resources in doing so?

Well here's one case I know of:

A woman's father refused to teach her his native language even though she wanted to learn it. When she pushed him to teach her, he'd explained that in the residential schools, if he spoke his language in the classroom, the teacher would stick a needle through his tongue. No metaphore of euphemism here. I mean literally a little thin and long metal thing that's pointy at one end and going through the muscle tissue of the tongue to the other side! He explained that he didn't want her to suffer from the language like he did. In other words, he was psychologiclaly traumatized by this treatment.

So is it that he didn't want to teach her the language, or that he had no respect for the language, or that he didn't care for the survival of the language? Not at all. It's that he feared the possible repercussions more than he loved the language. So now what are we going to say to this obvisously still traumazed adult? Tough? Live with it? Get over it?

So your theory that will power alone is enough to preserve a language doesn't hold water. Historical, including recent cultural genocidal, imperialistic factors must be taken into account. And by the way, that woman would only be in her fourties today. So it's not ancient history here.

So are you saying that we as a society have no responsibility to heal this trauma, and to try to maintian their culture as best we can in the meantime until their culture heals?

Remember, the victims of the residential schools are still alive (but not all well) today. Half of Canada's prison population had gone through the residential school system. Drugs are rampant in the communities. I remember one case of a prisoner who'd explained in an interview why she'd killed her baby daughter with her bare hands while hugging the baby. She'd explained that every time she hugged her daughter, it only reminded her of how the only time she was ever hugged as a child was when she was being raped. She couldn't handle this constant memory every time she hugged her child, and so snapped its neck. We have done this to an entire generation, and they are still alive today. And since they were taken away form their parents, they have no model in their memory of how a parent is supposed to behave. The only memory they have of parental figures are people who berat them, stuck needles through their tongues for daring to speak their mother-tongues, and government-backed rapists, so of course they themselves risk modelling either the same behaviour on their children or try to learn alternative behavirour through parenting courses. We have done this to an entire current generation, and we expect them to be able to preserve their languages and culture without our help while still facing 'drunken indian' type racism? Heck, if I'd gone through such events, I'd probably be doing all kinds of drugs too. And what kind of parent do you think I'd become?

Yes, some Indians, perhaps even many, have managed to get out of this rut, but the healing process is slow, and as far as you're concerned, society has no responsibility to right this wrong?

Oh Canada, our home on native land.

 

[karrie]

What I'm hearing is....

1. give people who have their own local government hiring priority to replace local government of other communities.

2. make access to local government difficult to impossible for anyone who can't make the transition from English to Cree easily (not nearly the same as flip flopping between two Arabic dialects).

sounds like a splendidly bad idea.

 

[karrie]

Well here's one case I know of:

A woman's father refused to teach her his native language even though she wanted to learn it. When she pushed him to teach her, he'd explained that in the residential schools, if he spoke his language in the classroom, the teacher would stick a needle through his tongue.

There are enough people in the first nations communities who know better, to keep it alive. There are already programs designed to maintain their cultural heritage. There are already governments that speak the language within their communities. I'd agree that these programs need to be maintained, with perhaps an emphasis on what atrocities hindered them in the past, and why they don't need to in the future. But... I don't believe it needs expansion of government funding, and definitely not expansion to my local government.

 

[JLM]

There are enough people in the first nations communities who know better, to keep it alive. There are already programs designed to maintain their cultural heritage. There are already governments that speak the language within their communities. I'd agree that these programs need to be maintained, with perhaps an emphasis on what atrocities hindered them in the past, and why they don't need to in the future. But... I don't believe it needs expansion of government funding, and definitely not expansion to my local government.

I think you are on the right track- I have absolutely no problem with minorities and think they have a right to generate whatever momentum they can for personal interests, but instead of going to Gov't for subsidization, they should start selling hotdogs or have a bake sale. When a few people put their minds to things much can be achieved.

 

[Machjo]

What I'm hearing is....

1. give people who have their own local government hiring priority to replace local government of other communities.

2. make access to local government difficult to impossible for anyone who can't make the transition from English to Cree easily (not nearly the same as flip flopping between two Arabic dialects).

sounds like a splendidly bad idea.

You seem to have misunderstood. Hiring priority would go only to those who are eually qualified, so in that sence knowing the local indigenous language would merely be a tie-breaker. How would that prevent others from working in the local government if they are better qualified?

Add to that that there are so few people who know the local indigenous languages that in 99% of the cases, there wouldn't even be an indigenous-language-capable candidate to compete with in the first place. Such a policy would be extremely mild, and few would even notice its impact on the community unless they should actually be paying attention to it. How could that be bad? This would merely give speakers of indigenous languages a 'tie-breaker' advantage, which is not a radical advantage at all. This would give speakers of these languages but the slightest advantage over non-speakers. If we can't even agree to give even that much of a slight advantage to their languages after all the genocide their culture has undergone, that really says alot about what we think of our hosts on this continent.

O Canada, our home on native land.

 

[Machjo]

I think you are on the right track- I have absolutely no problem with minorities and think they have a right to generate whatever momentum they can for personal interests, but instead of going to Gov't for subsidization, they should start selling hotdogs or have a bake sale. When a few people put their minds to things much can be achieved.

There was no talk of government subsidization whatever in this proposal! Not one cent. It seems many here have not even read the proposal and just stereotypically associated First Nations with financial burden in their minds, without even reading the details of the proposat. It woudl cost the taxpayer not one cent.

 

[Machjo]

There are enough people in the first nations communities who know better, to keep it alive. There are already programs designed to maintain their cultural heritage. There are already governments that speak the language within their communities. I'd agree that these programs need to be maintained, with perhaps an emphasis on what atrocities hindered them in the past, and why they don't need to in the future. But... I don't believe it needs expansion of government funding, and definitely not expansion to my local government.

Sure, if they stay in their little reservations far away from metropolitan centres. In other words, if they want to become stock brokers, they'll have to abandon their culture to go to the big cities. With the policy I'm proposing, it would allow First Nations to preserve their culture in a small domain not restricted by geography, thus allowing them to preserve their languages off-reservation too, yet at no cost ot the taxpayer.

 

[tracy]

Well here's one case I know of:

A woman's father refused to teach her his native language even though she wanted to learn it. When she pushed him to teach her, he'd explained that in the residential schools, if he spoke his language in the classroom, the teacher would stick a needle through his tongue. No metaphore of euphemism here. I mean literally a little thin and long metal thing that's pointy at one end and going through the muscle tissue of the tongue to the other side! He explained that he didn't want her to suffer from the language like he did. In other words, he was psychologiclaly traumatized by this treatment.

So is it that he didn't want to teach her the language, or that he had no respect for the language, or that he didn't care for the survival of the language? Not at all. It's that he feared the possible repercussions more than he loved the language. So now what are we going to say to this obvisously still traumazed adult? Tough? Live with it? Get over it?

So your theory that will power alone is enough to preserve a language doesn't hold water. Historical, including recent cultural genocidal, imperialistic factors must be taken into account. And by the way, that woman would only be in her fourties today. So it's not ancient history here.

So are you saying that we as a society have no responsibility to heal this trauma, and to try to maintian their culture as best we can in the meantime until their culture heals?

I've edited some of your post because I feel it gets a bit off topic. There were certainly horrible things done in residential schools and a lot of native communities suffer today from those events.

I realize they aren't ancient history, but there is no reason to not teach someone a language today if you want them to learn it. No one is going to abuse someone for speaking Cree. There are already programs to help maintain the languages of native bands and they meet with limited success. There is a school in Chase, BC for instance where the native language is taught. Still, the language of everyday use by most people there is English. If they want it to be their language, they need to use it. It isn't about what our government owes them, it's about practicality. NOTHING will preserve a language if it isn't useful enough. You can teach them the language from childhood, but if they don't use it, they will forget it. The only way to keep that language alive will be to keep those kids on the reserve until the day they die. When they move away for better jobs or whatever they will stop routinely meeting people from their band with whom they can communicate in their own language. The reality is the government doesn't have the power to save those languages.

 

[JLM]

There was no talk of government subsidization whatever in this proposal! Not one cent. It seems many here have not even read the proposal and just stereotypically associated First Nations with financial burden in their minds, without even reading the details of the proposat. It woudl cost the taxpayer not one cent.

Good, then I'd go for it.