But the Inuit brought it back. Or more precisely, have stuck to their tradition of non-confrontational governance.
What are your 'fringe' political ideas?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Esperanto!
Perhaps there is an argument for Esperanto here.8O
If you have a moment please check YouTube - The language challenge -- facing up to reality Professor Piron was a translator with the United Nations in Geneva.
You might also like to see lernu!: Main Page
Perhaps there is an argument for Esperanto here.8O
If you have a moment please check YouTube - The language challenge -- facing up to reality Professor Piron was a translator with the United Nations in Geneva.
You might also like to see lernu!: Main Page
What you really meant to say was: Tanks mach bye... Lard tunderin', ye can save a swalla o' the screech fer ta rest bye!
Add to that that research shows that learning an IAL prior to learning another language increses considerably the chances of learning the third language:
http://www.springboard2languages.org/documents/springboard_rationale.pdf
http://www.springboard2languages.org/documents/springboard_rationale.pdf
Take all the aboriginal "nations" that wish to be treated like nations and treat them like nations....in every respect. They will have to have passports to travel outside of their lands. They will not be allowed to partake in Canadian institutions without paying for them...etc.
For those aboriginal groups that choose not to be "nations", we can treat their reservation like any other municipality.
For those aboriginal groups that choose not to be "nations", we can treat their reservation like any other municipality.
But municipalities on an equal footing? Let's say they decide to adopt their local language as the language of local government administration, making all documents in that language. If we can make our languages official at the provincial and national levels, should they not be allowed to do the same at the local level?
They can do whatever they want at the local level as long as it is in accordance with Canadian law. For example, the could not stop a resident from selling their house or land to me.
That I like. In fact, I woldn't be surprised if alot of First Nations would support that idea themselves. Some, however, might view the reservation as a means of preserving their language and culture, so they could feel threatened by that, considering their percentage of the Canadian population.
But I could see Alberta's education system as a solution to that. In Alberta, public schools are free to teach among a list of languages, including Cree and Blackfoot, as second languages. Let's say Ontario did something similar by adopting the British model and letting schools teach whatever second language they want, be it Cree, Algonquin, etc., then that could help counterbalance the loss of protection on the reservations.
Another possibility would be to scrap Official Bilingualism, which just puts an added burden on First Nations languages.
If we scrapped these kinds of laws and gave schools more freedom, we wouldn't need the reservations. I fully agree with you on that.
Too bad for them. Separating people in order to preserve culture is never going to work unless to take the Taliban approach. As long as they are part of Canada, that should not be acceptable.
As for "nationhood" and all that that entails, I'm not entirely convinced that many aboriginal groups would support this. They may at first glance but once they look a little deeper and understand the full meaning, they might have a change of heart. One has to look how the rest of the world views raced based societies.
Municipalities have no input into education in Alberta. They would be at the whim of the local school boards and, of course, would have to collect school taxes.[/quote]
Where you and I disagree is on language and culture. I don't care about it at all.
I do care about language and culture because it is often at the root of violent conflict. Just take the Balcans for example. Language is often a major part of a people's identity for various reasons, and there are various explanations for this. That being the case, if we want different communities to integrate peacefully, we have to be able to reassure them that we will at least ensure a slow disappearance of their language or, better yet, protection of the language in some manner. Rapid death of the language, however, is bound to bring about resistance.
Statistics are showing however that some native languages have gained speakers in recent decades, and that might be something to play on in promoting more integration. I also like the freedom that Alberta has given its schools, and that was a wise move on its part as it heps put them and francophones on a more equal footing. In Ontario, that's not the case, French being given preferential treatment as a second language over indigenous languages.
Statistics are showing however that some native languages have gained speakers in recent decades, and that might be something to play on in promoting more integration. I also like the freedom that Alberta has given its schools, and that was a wise move on its part as it heps put them and francophones on a more equal footing. In Ontario, that's not the case, French being given preferential treatment as a second language over indigenous languages.
People care about it because it affects their access to resources. To take an example, a monolingual speaker of Inuqtitut (which is not so rare in the North) have access to a limited number of jobs, obviously. Language is a source of power without a doubt, and so people will naturrally fight for their key to the nation's economic resources, and that's language. Same applies to Quebec. The more the language shrinks, the more the market shrinks, and vice versa.
I don't disagree that that is the way it has been. My point is that that approach is flawed because it externalizes the problem. If immigration leads to the point where I can't function easily without speaking Chinese or Newfanese there are two options available. I can learn Chinese or Newfanese or I can fight to retain my the English language and culture in or society. One is an internal choice and one is external. One requires me to adapt and one requires everybody else to adapt. Most of the problems we have in this world are cause by people telling others what they need to do.
How about just making all governmental institutions be required to speak and write in English (or what ever language you prefer) and print out what ever is needed in a secondary or third language for citizens who speak something else so they can function. Point is, you have to simplify. To us for the most part, we do not care what people want to speak. We do make some accommodations for them. There are fringe elements who would like us to speak and have one official language, but they are the fringes on both side.
We have Mexican (Spanish speaking) territory that we conquered, you have French speaking territory procured in the same way, bottom line they both lost and have become part of the U.S. or Canada. Cultures don't have to change, visit Louisiana and you can still hear French spoken and French architecture.
We have Mexican (Spanish speaking) territory that we conquered, you have French speaking territory procured in the same way, bottom line they both lost and have become part of the U.S. or Canada. Cultures don't have to change, visit Louisiana and you can still hear French spoken and French architecture.
But there's a flaw in your argument there. If we're talking about French, English, and the indigenous languages, which ones among them are more foreign?
Just look at StatsCan for 2006; in Nunavut, about 8% of the population speaks neither English nor French. Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but is there a Chinatown anywhere in Nunavut that I don't know about? As far as I know, Nunavut is not a major immigration hub in Canada.
Now as for English and French in Montreal, again, which one should jobs and other economic resources be available in? Again, are we talking about immigrants here?In Canada, only aobut 15% of the population speaks both English and French. So this clearly has nohting ot do with immigrants.
Now I could agree with no official language. But then, what about air traffic control? freedom can be a good thing, but not when you're a pilot of ATC. Yet, depending on the language chosen, clearly one language group will be given an advantage over others. I could agree with no official language whenever possible, but when one common language is needed for the local community, go with the local language. When a common international language is needed such as in aeronautics, then why not a neutral easy language to make it fair for all?
If we did that, monolingual French Canadians would be blocked from all higher-level government jobs, though monolingual English Canadians would have access. Not a politically wise strategy especially in a recession.