Playground Bones Force Canada to Face Genocide Of Indian Children
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
I didn't see any mention of that although I thought I did. Argument by analogy - the premise and the conclusion(re author's definition of genocide) are adequately related, I guess.
..or we don't care if it changes or not.
People are either too lazy or too self absorbed to care about alternatives.
Actually, no...is it supposed to?
That second language is already happening. It's called English. The fact that the spread of the language has its roots in colonialism does not make it any more or less effective as the language of choice for the world.
This is an issue for another thread but I do not believe in right and wrong (morally speaking). I believe in what works and what doesn't work giving what you desire or choose.
or we don't care if it changes or not.
Tells me somthing about you.
People are either too lazy or too self absorbed to care about alternatives.
I know 3 languages fluently, can function in a fourth, and know a little of 2 others. Again, I think you're just revealing something of yourself if you can't even learn one second language to do your part to protect the world's cultural diversity. Heck, there are even languages out there that are designed to be easy to learn! How much easier can we make it for you?
Actually, no...is it supposed to?
It means the Chinese aren't that gret at English. Sure, the elites might be, but that's it. Most of the rest still can't speak it after years of learning it.
That second language is already happening. It's called English. The fact that the spread of the language has its roots in colonialism does not make it any more or less effective as the language of choice for the world.
Were you aware that not only has UNESCO expressed concern over English language hegemony, but that some governments around the world have even been adopting new policies to promote alternatives to English? Quebec is no exception here; English hegemony is also promoting conflict. And no, not all languages are equally valid choices for international communication. The easier a language is to learn, the more accessible it is to the general population. English puts the rest of the world at a distinct disadvantage owing to its illogical spelling, myriad dialects, countless exceptions to rules, etc.
Tells me somthing about you.
People are either too lazy or too self absorbed to care about alternatives.
I know 3 languages fluently, can function in a fourth, and know a little of 2 others. Again, I think you're just revealing something of yourself if you can't even learn one second language to do your part to protect the world's cultural diversity. Heck, there are even languages out there that are designed to be easy to learn! How much easier can we make it for you?
Actually, no...is it supposed to?
It means the Chinese aren't that gret at English. Sure, the elites might be, but that's it. Most of the rest still can't speak it after years of learning it.
That second language is already happening. It's called English. The fact that the spread of the language has its roots in colonialism does not make it any more or less effective as the language of choice for the world.
Were you aware that not only has UNESCO expressed concern over English language hegemony, but that some governments around the world have even been adopting new policies to promote alternatives to English? Quebec is no exception here; English hegemony is also promoting conflict. And no, not all languages are equally valid choices for international communication. The easier a language is to learn, the more accessible it is to the general population. English puts the rest of the world at a distinct disadvantage owing to its illogical spelling, myriad dialects, countless exceptions to rules, etc.
If it's not just, it won't work in the long run. The more it grows, the more it will raise opposition. For anything to work fully and long-term, it needs to be backed by justice. Common sense to me.
Really, what does it tell you?
You really shouldn't make assumptions.
Governments see a problem and make rules to deal with perceived problem. What else is new.
English is a valid choice because people are using it. If a better choice comes around, people will use that. Governments can try to regulate it as much as they want but it will be a wasted effort...unless the end result is in line with the goals of the regulators. Of course, the regulators will believe that there regulations achieved the end result.
It means the Chinese aren't that gret at English. Sure, the elites might be, but that's it. Most of the rest still can't speak it after years of learning it.
Really? Have you ever been to Toronto, Vancouver, San Francisco, New York, Sydney or Los Angeles?
Believe me, their English post secondary school level. The don't write "gret (see above)"
Really? Have you ever been to Toronto, Vancouver, San Francisco, New York, Sydney or Los Angeles?
Believe me, their English post secondary school level. The don't write "gret (see above)"
Quoting MachjoAnd no, not all languages are equally valid choices for international communication. The easier a language is to learn, the more accessible it is to the general population. English puts the rest of the world at a distinct disadvantage owing to its illogical spelling, myriad dialects, countless exceptions to rules, etc.
English is a valid choice because people are using it. If a better choice comes around, people will use that. Governments can try to regulate it as much as they want but it will be a wasted effort...unless the end result is in line with the goals of the regulators. Of course, the regulators will believe that there regulations achieved the end result.
English is one of the more difficult languages to learn. Most Germanic languages are. Romance languages such as Spanish, Portugese, Italian and French are considerably easier
The reason English has propogated is that it is the language of commerce, but with a greater reliance on globalization, that factor drives the need to learn two or three languages to be effective
English didn't just appear out of the blue. It was first Established among the elites in the British empire, then the US empire (e.g. the Phillipines). Even after that it was promoted by government agencies such as the British Council and USAID and CIDA. So no it did not appear just by accident yesterday.
As for its being an international language, yes it is. Bear in mind though that statistics show that the average non-native speaker has about a 4-6% chance to succeed in learning English well. In other words, for every 100 persons who try to learn English, 4-6 of them will succeed. The other 94-96% will fail. Don't you think they'll lash back sooner or later?
This is exactly what is starting to happen in Italy with the government promoting alternatives to English in schools and not making English compulsory, etc.
Just think of the money poor parents spend to have their child have a 4-6% chance of success in English, If you look at it that way, we might as well just buy a lottery ticket unless you've got the best teachers and resources, as is often the case among the privileged classes.
Anyway, this is veering a little off topic. So to bring it back to topic, let's just say that the preservation of Canada's indigenous languages is also tied into global communication. If an easy common second language could be adopted (Italy is experimenting with alternatives in its schools already), then it would be possible for all to just learn their first language plus the auxiliary language, thus putting all languages on an equal footing, including Canada's indigenous languages, and in this way help them to survive, or at least die much more slowly.
it's still genocide no matter how or when its done.......those blankets were given to the Natives knowingly.....the smallox just "didn't happen" to be there ya know....it WAS done on purpose....
Didn't we already say sorry for the schools and cough up a settlement in cash for those hurt by it?
the government did...what about the churches, they were a major factor in all this, but the blame gets pushed onto the government, which in turns cost the tax payer....where as if the churches said sorry(like they'd mean it) and coffed up compensation also........fairs fair afterall......................
Unfortunately, in our society, saying I'm sorry comes with a huge legal bill. It is, hands down, the main reason nobody wants to admit they are at fault.
Actually, the infected blanket story may be in question. What is not in question is that in the first hundred years after Columbus, 100 million Amerindians died of European diseases. Within two years of the first Spanish explorers reaching the shores of Florida, Small Pox reached Hudson Bay. The Europeans did not have to spread infected blankets. The diseases spread through the population like wild fire. The people of the Arrow Lakes, the Sinixt, were wiped out by as many as a dozen epidemics, only about half of them after contact with fur traders. When David Thompson arrived around 1811 only a few hundred Sinixt were still living. Today there are probably more Sinixt than before Thompson.
Oh so that was supposed to be proportional. Maybe we deserve a refund of sorts and the Church can pick up the tab for the rest.
How much do you figure should be returned by the people affected by that policy, monitarily? They can keep the sorry part. ;-)
fine, but the article isn't about that... it's kind of a false link to create in people's minds is my point.