Should seperatists be allowed second chances??
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
Jersay said:
In some respects, Quebec does more to help native languages than does the rest of Canada. The problem, however, is that the provincial government is irrational. On the one hand, it requires the natives to learn French (for that distinct society stuff) and English (perceived as Quebec's language for international communication) and then throws money at the natives to elarn their native languages. Bad news though. When are they supposed to find the time to learn their native language, French and English all at once? Needless to say it's a tough balancing act. The reality is taht some natives only succeed in learning French; others English, very few both, and some their native languages. It really is a human juggling act.
In English Canada, French is out of the picture, so the natives only need to focus on their native languages and English (and even that can be tough for some).
Now if Canada had an easy-to-learn official auxiliary language, then all Canadians could learn that as their second language in school, and then spend the rest of their time developpng their native languages. So natives in Quebec, for instance, could simply learn their native language and Esperanto and (this would probably still be necessary at least during the transition period) either French or English as opposed to French AND English. French Canadians (even the linguistically challenged) could easily find work in toronto or even Vancouver using the auxiliary language. In like manner, an English Canadian could easily find work in Quebec city by likewise using the auxiliary language.
If we should take Esperanto, for instance, a child who should start learning it at the age of eight for only two hours a week ought to be fluent in the language by the age of ten or eleven for most. So even the slowest student ought to be able to master the language by the age of fifteen at the latest. Anything more than that, and he must have serious learning issues. Alot more democratic and just, don't you think? Besides, democracy is not for teh linguistic elites, but for everyone, by definition.
Yet another advantage with an auxiliary language. Some refugees cannot be sent back for very legitimate reasons (minority realigions, etc, lives at risk, etc.) Now if Canada should have an official Auxlang (short hand for auxiliary language), then instead of this refugee being on social assistance for nine years trying to learn English, he could be on social assistance for one year learning the auxlang (auxlangs are literally designed to be easy to learn). This would mean Big Time tax savings right there. Tourists likewise could then have the option of studying our auxlang for a year before comming to Canada and thus enjoy conversations with real Canadians while on the trip rather than just rushing through with their cameras and tourguide serving as interpreter every step of the way. Thus making tourism a more culturally enriching experience. The Canadian military could be fully linguistically united, with little money and time spent to achieve this. During peace keeping missions, locals in areas who'd like to communicate with soldiers quickly and who have the resources to do so would generally find the auxlang much easier to elarn than either English or French. The UN would save a bundle on on translation costs with an Auxlang likewise.
Not to mention air traffic control. While that is a political issue likewise, more importantly it's also a public safety issue. Research has found that for the last thirty years the single greates cause of civilian air crashes has in fact been miscommunication between pilot and controller. Again, and easy-to-learn second language could solve the political language problem (i.e. native speakers of English getting all the pilot and controller jobs at everyone else's tax and other expenses), the safety issue (a mastered second language rather than franglais, Chinglish, Spanglish, Ingrish, Deutschglish, etc.) and obviously save lives and money.
For crying out loud, I learnt Esperanto in less than a hundred hours of self study with a grammar (20$) and a dictionary (20$). 100 hours+40$CAN per person to unite French and English Canada. Come on, this is a fiscal conservative's orgasm compared to the current language education policy.
Not to mention money saved from government translation costs between French and English, and then money saved in the private sector from big companies too. What more can a fiscal conservative or any federalist ask for?
Not to mention money saved from government translation costs between French and English, and then money saved in the private sector from big companies too. What more can a fiscal conservative or any federalist ask for?
But that makes the conservatives and federalist happy. What about hard-core seperatists?
And what about other countries that don't have the same kind of budget as Canada or America or another rich nation.
And what about other countries that don't have the same kind of budget as Canada or America or another rich nation.
quote="Jersay"But that makes the conservatives and federalist happy. What about hard-core seperatists?
I think sovereignists would be happy likewise since this would mean that, even if Quebec should separate from Canada politically, it would thus have a more efficient alternative to English in its communication with Canada. This would also increase their respect for Canada since such a policy reduces the threat of English language hegemony in Quebec itself, thus reducing the chances of bill 101 growing significantly more teeth anytime soon. This protects English-speakers in Quebec to some extent. Add to that that I'm sure there are a few fiscal conservatives in the sovereignist camp likewise who'd recognise the economic savings this could bring to government and business in Quebec-Canada relations (after all even a sovereign Quebec would still need to be able to communicate with its neighbours, no?).
Now while such a policy would not guarantee the end of the sovereignist movement, I'd suspect that it would have a moderating effect on it none-the-less. Granted, it would have a moderating effect on the federalist camp likewise. Since all sides could suddenly communicate with one another, both sides would naturally influence the thoughts of the other too.
Just look at Canadian Content. How many unilingual french-speaking Quebecois are here discussing with us right now? 0! That's how many! 0! And how many unilingual English-speakers here frequent french language forums from Quebec? 0 likewise. A BIG Z-E-R-O! An auxlang would bring about pan-canadian internet forums within a generation. Naturally the topics discussed would become a synthesis of what is currently being discussed on Englsih and French forums in isolation one from the other as if from two opposite sides of our world, or dare I say two worlds.
And what about other countries that don't have the same kind of budget as Canada or America or another rich nation.
It would be a relief. Are you aware of how much time and money the Chinese must spend to learn English? Some have learnt it for 10 years and still can't speak it. I've met Chinese friends who'd studied Esperanto for 2 years and speak it as if it were their native language.
Believe me, an auxlang would bring fiscal conservatives the world over to the biggest orgasmic experience ever.
I think sovereignists would be happy likewise since this would mean that, even if Quebec should separate from Canada politically, it would thus have a more efficient alternative to English in its communication with Canada. This would also increase their respect for Canada since such a policy reduces the threat of English language hegemony in Quebec itself, thus reducing the chances of bill 101 growing significantly more teeth anytime soon. This protects English-speakers in Quebec to some extent. Add to that that I'm sure there are a few fiscal conservatives in the sovereignist camp likewise who'd recognise the economic savings this could bring to government and business in Quebec-Canada relations (after all even a sovereign Quebec would still need to be able to communicate with its neighbours, no?).
Now while such a policy would not guarantee the end of the sovereignist movement, I'd suspect that it would have a moderating effect on it none-the-less. Granted, it would have a moderating effect on the federalist camp likewise. Since all sides could suddenly communicate with one another, both sides would naturally influence the thoughts of the other too.
Just look at Canadian Content. How many unilingual french-speaking Quebecois are here discussing with us right now? 0! That's how many! 0! And how many unilingual English-speakers here frequent french language forums from Quebec? 0 likewise. A BIG Z-E-R-O! An auxlang would bring about pan-canadian internet forums within a generation. Naturally the topics discussed would become a synthesis of what is currently being discussed on Englsih and French forums in isolation one from the other as if from two opposite sides of our world, or dare I say two worlds.
And what about other countries that don't have the same kind of budget as Canada or America or another rich nation.
It would be a relief. Are you aware of how much time and money the Chinese must spend to learn English? Some have learnt it for 10 years and still can't speak it. I've met Chinese friends who'd studied Esperanto for 2 years and speak it as if it were their native language.
Believe me, an auxlang would bring fiscal conservatives the world over to the biggest orgasmic experience ever.
Oh, while fiscal conservatives would love this, as would federalists looking for a unifying identity for Canada and sovereignists looking for an alternative to English in international relations, the moderate left would likewise benefit from this in that it provides more equality among all groups (after all, if any idiot can learn this language, highly paid translators hired by transcanadian companies are suddenly out of a job while any high school grad is suddenly free to travel anywhere in Canada to find a job; the great language equalizer if you will).
So, fiscal conservatives would win as would federalists, soveregnists, the moderate left, maybe even the far left, and religionists who want an opportunity to preach Canada-wide without being stopped by the language barrier. Who would really lose other than language experts (teachers, translators, interpreters, etc.)?
So, fiscal conservatives would win as would federalists, soveregnists, the moderate left, maybe even the far left, and religionists who want an opportunity to preach Canada-wide without being stopped by the language barrier. Who would really lose other than language experts (teachers, translators, interpreters, etc.)?
Re: RE: Should seperatists be allowed second chances??
Sure. But you have to be able to learn it first. And if failing to learn a language after ten years of study means that you fall into the have-nots category, then it's not really a choice, is it?
I rmember teaching English in a Quebec highscool years ago. And we were talking about bill 101. All the teachers said that if they had the individual choice, they'd send their kid to English school because of its economic advantages (English is just too difficult to learn as a foreign language for most of them). but they all said, without exception, that they supported bill 101 precisely for that reason. If everyone could choose English, they al would, and French would die withina few generations except maybe as the family lanuage or the one spoken at the cafe. But French would certainly dye as the language of science and technology.
So choice is elusive. What is choice? Sometimes people choose to remove choice from themselves. And that is wehre the sovereignist movement comes in. They feel suffocated by English in North America and so try to produce opportunities in their own native language and so beleive that sovereignty could somehow solve this problem. After all, putting food on the table isn't a choice. Learning a language might be a choice or luxory for a native speaker of English, but for the rest of the world, learning English IS NOT A CHOICE in the real sense of the word.
FiveParadox said:Anyone wanting to speak the language of their choice?
Sure. But you have to be able to learn it first. And if failing to learn a language after ten years of study means that you fall into the have-nots category, then it's not really a choice, is it?
I rmember teaching English in a Quebec highscool years ago. And we were talking about bill 101. All the teachers said that if they had the individual choice, they'd send their kid to English school because of its economic advantages (English is just too difficult to learn as a foreign language for most of them). but they all said, without exception, that they supported bill 101 precisely for that reason. If everyone could choose English, they al would, and French would die withina few generations except maybe as the family lanuage or the one spoken at the cafe. But French would certainly dye as the language of science and technology.
So choice is elusive. What is choice? Sometimes people choose to remove choice from themselves. And that is wehre the sovereignist movement comes in. They feel suffocated by English in North America and so try to produce opportunities in their own native language and so beleive that sovereignty could somehow solve this problem. After all, putting food on the table isn't a choice. Learning a language might be a choice or luxory for a native speaker of English, but for the rest of the world, learning English IS NOT A CHOICE in the real sense of the word.
Or how about this, Five. We can all speak what we want, and the government can hire thousands of interpretors? Who will pay for it? Language is not about choice, it's about communication within a particular society. Without a common language, that society ceases to be. And in Quebec, they're English is just as miserable as the French of most English Canadians.
Yet the system works, in my opinion.
Simultaneous translation in our federal institutions serves the purpose — federal services are offered in both languages without reservation, and people are free to learn either English, or French, or both (just as I am attempting to learn both languages). I don't think that there is as much of a communicatory disaster as is being implied here.
Simultaneous translation in our federal institutions serves the purpose — federal services are offered in both languages without reservation, and people are free to learn either English, or French, or both (just as I am attempting to learn both languages). I don't think that there is as much of a communicatory disaster as is being implied here.
Re: RE: Should seperatists be allowed second chances??
I've tought secondary students in Quebec, and they (nor most teachers in the school except the English ones) could'nt communicate effectively in English.
Now immagine them watching teh news and seeing their own Prime Minister on TV, and listening to him either dubbed or with subtext! their own Prime Minister! This makes them feel like outright foreigners to their own PM. I lived in Charlevoix County, and that's the heart of the sovereignist movement in the province. I think I met a handful of federalists and that was it!
Why do you think Bill 101 was passed? Because the french speakers couldn't even find work in Montreal at the time! Many still feel closed off form the rest of Canada in that they know damn well that thye'd have a hard time finding a job in Montreal, and would find it impossible to find a job even as a dishwasher in Ottawa unless they learn English well. but here's the problem. Charlevoix is 1.5 hours North of Quebec city. and even in Quebec city, nearly all can speak French. Only in some parts of Montreal might they need English. But that and Toronto are where the money is. So you can immagine the anger when all the money is in English Canada and they are blocked from it due to the language barrier. That provides lots of fuel to the flames of Quebec nationalism. In the end, a united nation needs a common language. And it must be a languaeg that all can learn within a reasonable amount of time. To need translators between compatriots is a clear indication that they are not compatriots except in law only.
FiveParadox said:
I've tought secondary students in Quebec, and they (nor most teachers in the school except the English ones) could'nt communicate effectively in English.
Now immagine them watching teh news and seeing their own Prime Minister on TV, and listening to him either dubbed or with subtext! their own Prime Minister! This makes them feel like outright foreigners to their own PM. I lived in Charlevoix County, and that's the heart of the sovereignist movement in the province. I think I met a handful of federalists and that was it!
Why do you think Bill 101 was passed? Because the french speakers couldn't even find work in Montreal at the time! Many still feel closed off form the rest of Canada in that they know damn well that thye'd have a hard time finding a job in Montreal, and would find it impossible to find a job even as a dishwasher in Ottawa unless they learn English well. but here's the problem. Charlevoix is 1.5 hours North of Quebec city. and even in Quebec city, nearly all can speak French. Only in some parts of Montreal might they need English. But that and Toronto are where the money is. So you can immagine the anger when all the money is in English Canada and they are blocked from it due to the language barrier. That provides lots of fuel to the flames of Quebec nationalism. In the end, a united nation needs a common language. And it must be a languaeg that all can learn within a reasonable amount of time. To need translators between compatriots is a clear indication that they are not compatriots except in law only.
I don't think that the sovereigntists in the Province of Québec would respond with favour to the suggestion that perhaps instead of a province (or nation, as the case may be) where they can speak their own language, that we should rather force them to correspond in something else entirely.
Re: RE: Should seperatists be allowed second chances??
My apologies, Five. It appears there is a misunderstanding then.
So let me explain more clearly.
Since an auxlang could be learnt by most students within 2-3 years, this would mean that most students, should they start to learn Esperanto at the age of eight, could learn it to fluency by the age of ten or eleven at the most, after which they could start to learn the other official language should they wish to do so. And those who find Esperanto too difficult? Well then obviously they'll never succeed with Frenc or English as a foreing language anyway.
Now as for political issues, sure we could keep English and French in Parliament and federal government establishments if that is what the electorate want.
But I'm sure you'll agree with me that the government cannot provide a free interpreter for a Quebecois who's job hunting in toronto. Or a translator who can translate his resume for free. there's a limit to everything and interpreters are expensive. So with Esperanto as a common language across Canada, suddenly this job seeker could find a job without the assistance of an interpreter. If he could learn English well, bonus. If not, then he could still use Esperanto. that way, he could genuinely feel that Canada is his nation. As for parliament, well having interpreters there makes it look more like the UN. Not so personal when you can't speak directly to teh person. That could be anadded advantage too. those MP's who could speak Englsih and French well would ahve no problem. But when in the course of a heated debate an MP who hasn't mastered both of these languages well wants to ensure he's clearly understood without potential mess ups from an interpreter, would have the option of switching directly tot eh auxlang for everyone to understand without interpreter, along with tone of voice, emotion etc which the interpreter can nevr fuly relay.
When I was in Beijing in 2004 I met a UN interpreter, and here's how he said he could distinguish a good interpreter form a new one:
The experienced interpreter doesn't waste his time trying to interpret what he doesn't understand; he just lets it go. the inexperienced one will stay stuck on it and thus lose the whole conversation.
So if this happens at the UN, I'm sure it happens in the House too.
FiveParadox said:
My apologies, Five. It appears there is a misunderstanding then.
So let me explain more clearly.
Since an auxlang could be learnt by most students within 2-3 years, this would mean that most students, should they start to learn Esperanto at the age of eight, could learn it to fluency by the age of ten or eleven at the most, after which they could start to learn the other official language should they wish to do so. And those who find Esperanto too difficult? Well then obviously they'll never succeed with Frenc or English as a foreing language anyway.
Now as for political issues, sure we could keep English and French in Parliament and federal government establishments if that is what the electorate want.
But I'm sure you'll agree with me that the government cannot provide a free interpreter for a Quebecois who's job hunting in toronto. Or a translator who can translate his resume for free. there's a limit to everything and interpreters are expensive. So with Esperanto as a common language across Canada, suddenly this job seeker could find a job without the assistance of an interpreter. If he could learn English well, bonus. If not, then he could still use Esperanto. that way, he could genuinely feel that Canada is his nation. As for parliament, well having interpreters there makes it look more like the UN. Not so personal when you can't speak directly to teh person. That could be anadded advantage too. those MP's who could speak Englsih and French well would ahve no problem. But when in the course of a heated debate an MP who hasn't mastered both of these languages well wants to ensure he's clearly understood without potential mess ups from an interpreter, would have the option of switching directly tot eh auxlang for everyone to understand without interpreter, along with tone of voice, emotion etc which the interpreter can nevr fuly relay.
When I was in Beijing in 2004 I met a UN interpreter, and here's how he said he could distinguish a good interpreter form a new one:
The experienced interpreter doesn't waste his time trying to interpret what he doesn't understand; he just lets it go. the inexperienced one will stay stuck on it and thus lose the whole conversation.
So if this happens at the UN, I'm sure it happens in the House too.
Well when I was a teenager I started as a Progressive Conservative supporter, but soon after grade 10 I went to the extreme left for a long time. I believed in Marxism, but as I grew older and wiser I totally started to disagree with marxism. So well I left those radical parties and joined up with the New Democrats. I've kept a soft socialist stance but I believe in both capitalism and socialism now and nothing anyone could say to me could ever make me believe in Marxism again. So yeah people make mistakes in life but they always deserve to be able to make informed and educated changes in their lifes. Such as "second chances".