lesperan@ai.toronto.edu (Yves Lesperance) (08/04/89)
I don't know if a rational discussion on this topic can be held in this forum, but let me try... First, one should try to keep the issue of regional alienation and lack of influence separate from that of linguistic policies. Failure to devise an adequate constitutional agreement between Quebec and the rest of the country that includes adequate linguistic provisions will not aleviate alienation in the western and atlantic provinces, it will only break up the country and leave Ontario as dominant as ever. Let proposals to resolve that problem be discussed independently (say under regional representation). Portions of Bill 101, 158, and various provisions of the Meech Lake Accord have been largely viewed in English Canada as arbitrary restrictions on individual rights. What need to be recognized in Canadian political culture, are the rights of linguistic communities. Both communities associated with Canada's official languages currently have some geographical area where it is possible to largely lead one's public as well as private life in that official language. Each linguistic community is large enough to generate a lively cultural environment. It should be part of the Canadian raison d'etre that this state of affairs should continue in the future. But the situation of each community in this respect is widely different. Assimilation has decimated the French community throughout the course of Canadian history. Immigrants come to Canada looking largely for a less imperialistic version of the American way of life and culture. Unless they speak French before they arrive, they will chose to integrate into the English community in the absence of measures to incite them to do otherwise. Therefore, if the survival of each linguistic community is to be assured, the legitimacy of taking such measures must be recognized. Now, there may be disagreement about the extent of the threats to the French community's continued viability and about what incitative measures are reasonable and appropriate, but not on the goal itself, nor on the principle that individual rights must sometime be traded off against collective linguistic rights. If you don't think collectivities can have rights think of them as the rights of future generations to be able to live in their official language (and as the rights of their currently living parents to have that be the case). To me (and most French Canadians I would think) the goal of ensuring continued viability of the French community is more important than the right to education or other government services in one's language in areas of the country where the other linguistic community is dominant. The provision of these services is commendable, but the level of services provided should not interfere with the continued viability of the communities. Similarly, I think it is reasonable to resrict the rights of immigrants to chose which language they will be educated in because immigrants should be required to support the purposes of the country to which they freely chose to immigrate. I am not sure how these views should be implemented into linguistic policies and constitutional provisions. I do not like the Meech Lake Accord much because it is too vague on collective linguistic rights and probably too restrictive with regards to constitutional change in non-linguistic matters. But I think criticisms of it and Bill 158 that focus on individual rights to services in one's language are misguided. The Trudeau vision of a unitary bilingual Canada is a recipe for conflict and dissapearance of the French community. Yves Lesperance lesperan@ai.toronto.edu
rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (08/04/89)
In article <89Aug3.145600edt.10404@neat.cs.toronto.edu> lesperan@ai.toronto.edu (Yves Lesperance) writes: >I don't know if a rational discussion on this topic can be held in this >forum, but let me try... A commendable try ... I think my disagreements with some of the following arise from the degree of emphasis that you place on the linguistic aspect to culture from the many other ways in which culture can be defined (no one would accuse those from India of being English, though that is in fact the lingua franca of the country), and from the implications in several statements that there is a Canadian nation and a French Canadian nation which are simply defined and separated by language and geography. I would hope that there are French Canadians that view themselves first as Canadians, just as there are many non-francophones that view themselves as Canadians before they append their ethnic background. But a difference in degree can be resolved rationally if there is willingness to compromise on both sides, and compromise is a *very* Canadian trait. >Portions of Bill 101, 158, and various provisions of the Meech Lake Accord >have been largely viewed in English Canada as arbitrary restrictions on >individual rights. What need to be recognized in Canadian political >culture, are the rights of linguistic communities. The danger of enshrining rights in linguistic *communities* is one of falling into a tribal philosophy where as with visible markings of race or creed the identification and partitionning of the groups into competing communities is enhanced rather than diffused. Furthermore, the lack of communication is made even more difficult. There have to be strong *individual* rights to preserve the minority elements in such communities, since it is through the minority elements on each side who experience both cultures that most of the interaction must take place. It is also the presence of minority elements that give the young child the first experience of differences that can later grow into real tolerance. Uni-cultural melting pots like the US do not really understand other peoples, while the more intensely one concentrates on ones own culture, the more one misses of the lessons and experiences of others. However, the strong attachment of the French around the world to the French language, and their view of it in relation to their culture is a fact that I agree must be brought into the equation. >Both communities >associated with Canada's official languages currently have some geographical >area where it is possible to largely lead one's public as well as private life >in that official language. Each linguistic community is large enough to >generate a lively cultural environment. It should be part of the Canadian >raison d'etre that this state of affairs should continue in the future. It is not clear that the presence of minorities in both of those communities have inhibited in any way such environments. And in many ways I think they have enhanced them. Shoul it not be part of the raison d'etre to insure that these elements should continue as well, as I believe was the original definition of the two distinct societies which formed the Canadian identity? >But the situation of each community in this respect is widely different. >Assimilation has decimated the French community throughout the course of >Canadian history. But as an English speaking Canadian, I feel that the original British culture that was part of the founding of Canada, has also been largely decimated. And it is more difficult to define and arrest the cultural erosion when it is not strongly associated with language. Some of it lies in the philosophical and emotional foundation that comes when a mother tells fairy stories or instills other cultural values into a small child. As more non-British immigrants have arrived and later marriages have mixed other cultures into the people it has made English speaking Canadians a far different people than any Briton in merry old England. However, the Canadian culture that has grown up in its place is not really so bad, nor has the original totally disappeared. I do not think French culture in Canada will fair much differently, unless it were to return to the isolation of its rural past before the Quiet Revolution. >Unless >they speak French before they arrive, they will chose to integrate into >the English community in the absence of measures to incite them to do >otherwise. Therefore, if the survival of each linguistic community is >to be assured, the legitimacy of taking such measures must be recognized. I do not believe that French communities are that unpalatable compared to the English ones that other aspects such as job possibilities, locale and other factors are so overwhelmed as to require such strong coercion. But I think the basic objection I have to this is fact that it *is* coercion, and a repudiation of free choice, rather than being an incentive driven approach which would draw converts to the French community because of obvious advantages. There is something wrong if you have to use such tactics, and I simply do not think there is that much wrong with Quebec to justify such claims. >Now, there may be disagreement about the extent of the threats to the French >community's continued viability and about what incitative measures >are reasonable and appropriate, but not on the goal itself, nor on the >principle that individual rights must sometime be traded off against >collective linguistic rights. This is a general enough precept that it allows a virtually unlimited spectrum of interpretation. Would you agree that the preservation of the linguistic rights of the minority falls under this, and thus the individual rights of francophone Quebecers must sometimes be traded off against those of its Inuit and native communities? >To me (and most French Canadians I would think) the goal of ensuring >continued viability of the French community is more important than the >right to education or other government services in one's language in areas >of the country where the other linguistic community is dominant. The >provision of these services is commendable, but the level of services >provided should not interfere with the continued viability of the communities. My disagreement with this is the degree of tribal behaviour this suggests to me. I don't think one can cut oneself off from the outside world to quite the extent of not caring what happens outside ones own community, or to members of that community outside certain demographic bounds. But I agree that complete service in the language of choice anywhere in the country is not a practical scenario. There has to be sufficient local populace that they can support such services themselves, and it is still their responsibility to interact with the majority culture outside their community on terms acceptable to the majority. The provision of such services by the majority is commendable, but the denial of the minority the right to provide such services for themselves when they are willing and able to support it is reprehensible, not so? >Similarly, I think it is reasonable to resrict the rights of immigrants >to chose which language they will be educated in because immigrants >should be required to support the purposes of the country to which they >freely chose to immigrate. I think the restriction of rights should be used as a last and temporary resort, not as a fundamental vehicle of policy. Surely there are other alternatives which have not been exhausted, and there is no imminent threat such as occurred in WWII, or the FLQ crisis to justify panic reactions to protect ones *country*. On the downside, the impact of such negative measures on the psyches of both the oppressor and the oppressed, not to mention other civilized peoples with whom one must deal will have long term repercussions. >I am not sure how these views should be implemented into linguistic >policies and constitutional provisions. I do not like the Meech Lake >Accord much because it is too vague on collective linguistic rights >and probably too restrictive with regards to constitutional change >in non-linguistic matters. But I think criticisms of it and Bill 158 >that focus on individual rights to services in one's language are >misguided. Over reacting, maybe. >The Trudeau vision of a unitary bilingual Canada is a recipe >for conflict and dissapearance of the French community. It might work if it did not force the integration of the two communities but instead worked to expose each to the others culture (most particularly the anglophone populations in this regard), protected the minorities from gross domination and assisted the channels of communication between the two. Time would presumably solve the remaining difficulties, though I doubt that total integration would ever occur, nor should it really be a desired goal. >Yves Lesperance lesperan@ai.toronto.edu Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {uunet, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 4719 | !watmath!rwwetmore
sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (08/05/89)
In article <89Aug3.145600edt.10404@neat.cs.toronto.edu> lesperan@ai.toronto.edu (Yves Lesperance) writes: >Portions of Bill 101, 158, and various provisions of the Meech Lake Accord >have been largely viewed in English Canada as arbitrary restrictions on >individual rights. What need to be recognized in Canadian political >culture, are the rights of linguistic communities. Both communities >associated with Canada's official languages currently have some geographical >area where it is possible to largely lead one's public as well as private life >in that official language. Each linguistic community is large enough to >generate a lively cultural environment. It should be part of the Canadian >raison d'etre that this state of affairs should continue in the future. >But the situation of each community in this respect is widely different. >Assimilation has decimated the French community throughout the course of >Canadian history. Immigrants come to Canada looking largely for a less >imperialistic version of the American way of life and culture. Unless >they speak French before they arrive, they will chose to integrate into >the English community in the absence of measures to incite them to do >otherwise. Therefore, if the survival of each linguistic community is >to be assured, the legitimacy of taking such measures must be recognized. I have come to the conclusion the the terms 'community rights' and 'individual rights' are mis-named; in fact, they are backwards. The rights that we call 'individual rights,' such as freedom of speech, assembly, non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc. are really community rights. Why? Because they apply equally to everyone under the law. Read my lips: APPLY EQUALLY TO EVERYONE. How much more community-oriented can you get? So-called 'community rights', as spelled out by Yves, are really individual rights. Why? Because they are really privileges demanded by small-but-vocal groups of people, who insist on getting their way 'for the good of the community.' Yves claims that the 'community right' of the Francophone community to push immigrants around and sucker them into investing their lives in the Quebec French community (instead of the much larger and more economically viable North American English community) for the good of future generations of Francophones, so they will be able to live in their own community. BUNK! Anyone who does not emmigrate (with a few exceptions) gets to live in their own community. Just don't leave your community, and you get it. Whatever the language of future generations of Quebecers is, they will, by definition, get to live in their own community. What Yves is crying for is the right to impose his idea of what that community should be like; Yves' individual right to push other people around. All attempts to define 'linguistic community rights' are really attempts by certain individuals to impose their preference for a particular language on groups of other people. If everyone is given freedom of speech (read, write, post signs in whatever language), and freedom of association (associage (read work for, employ, party with), then everyone will get what they want in their life, and the community will be happy. If individuals get to push other people around, then there will continue to be strife (@*$&^*@ XXXphones won't let me post my sigh in YYY; I hate those XXXphones), and the community will be unhappy. > >Now, there may be disagreement about the extent of the threats to the French >community's continued viability and about what incitative measures >are reasonable and appropriate, but not on the goal itself, nor on the >principle that individual rights must sometime be traded off against >collective linguistic rights. If you don't think collectivities can have >rights think of them as the rights of future generations to be able to >live in their official language (and as the rights of their currently living >parents to have that be the case). Future generations will always get to live in their language of choice, if the likes of 178 are defeated. Only if it succeeds will people be forced to live with the tyranny of a language that they did not choose. > >To me (and most French Canadians I would think) the goal of ensuring >continued viability of the French community is more important than the >right to education or other government services in one's language in areas >of the country where the other linguistic community is dominant. Does it perhaps tell you something that you're having to use the big government club to get people to stop drifting away from your community? To get people to join your community? Do you really believe that FORCING people to partake of the French culture is for their benefit? The people ARE the community, and when you force the people to do something, you are OPRESSING the community. >Yves Lesperance lesperan@ai.toronto.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Office: DC3548 x3934 Home phone: 570-2517 Post Awful: 60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1 UUCP: watmath!watmsg!sccowan Domain: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu "Everything to excess. Moderation is for monks." -Lazarus Long
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) (08/06/89)
In article <28168@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes: In article <89Aug3.145600edt.10404@neat.cs.toronto.edu> lesperan@ai.toronto.edu (Yves Lesperance) writes: >To me (and most French Canadians I would think) the goal of ensuring >continued viability of the French community is more important than the >right to education or other government services in one's language in areas >of the country where the other linguistic community is dominant. Does it perhaps tell you something that you're having to use the big government club to get people to stop drifting away from your community? To get people to join your community? Do you really believe that FORCING people to partake of the French culture is for their benefit? The people ARE the community, and when you force the people to do something, you are OPRESSING the community. Hallelujah. It seems to me that if the French community in Quebec, or any community anywhere, wishes to perpetuate its existence and culture, then it is its MEMBERS' responsibility, not that of immigrants. Admittedly, these immigrants may have a choice in where they eventually live in Canada (although I believe that Quebec has some sort of special privilege that allows it to "claim" X percent of the immigrants to Canada), they should be allowed to exercise every human being's freedom of choice concerning their language and education. Of course, this must be somewhat constrained so that they can function effectively within their new country -- so maybe THIS is some justification for imposing French on immigrants to Quebec. But not this "oh my gosh save our culture" cry! If your culture is worth saving, then it will be saved without the need for compulsion. Just look at the French in France. You don't see them worrying overly much about the "intrusion" of English terms into their language. In fact, those terms are officially recognized by l'Academie Francaise. If there's one things that p***es me off, it's Quebecers wanting to be more French than the French. Thank god my parents chose to send me to English school. At least *I* will be able to send my children to the school I feel is best for them. -- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) (08/11/89)
In article <KIM.89Aug5134544@watsup.waterloo.edu>, kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes: > Just look at the French in France. You don't see them worrying overly > much about the "intrusion" of English terms into their language. If you believe that, I have some nices bridges accross the Seine for sale... In the late sixties the French government had ALGOL-60 officially translated into French (meaning that keywords like BEGIN, END, PROCEDURE and so on got translated to French equivalents). Then there was a strong drive to use the French version in schools, universities and so on. I'm not sure how successful this exercise was in the end, or whether they repeated it with other languages. This is just one example, but it is representative. Not only do (many of) the French think that their culture (and language) is just great (they may have a point here), they often also think it is far superior to the feeble attempts of the rest of humanity (and they are definitely getting carried away there). In France, after all, culture is not just culture, c'est culture.
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) (08/12/89)
In article <3521@uwovax.uwo.ca> gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) writes:
In the late sixties the French government had ALGOL-60 officially
translated into French (meaning that keywords like BEGIN, END, PROCEDURE
and so on got translated to French equivalents). Then there was a
strong drive to use the French version in schools, universities and so
on. I'm not sure how successful this exercise was in the end, or
whether they repeated it with other languages.
I once got a close look at the French-ized version of Logo. It was
absolutely incomprehensible. From the major French computing
magazines that I saw, programs were written in the normal "English"
computer languages.
Perhaps the French have gone on with their language conversion, but if
they have, they are simply heading for a dead end, because no one else
in the world will use that language but them, not when even the
Japanese use the English versions.
--
Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu
Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canadagilles@alberta.uucp (Gilles Simon Dionne) (08/14/89)
In article <KIM.89Aug12020709@watsup.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes: >In article <3521@uwovax.uwo.ca> gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) writes: > > In the late sixties the French government had ALGOL-60 officially > translated into French (meaning that keywords like BEGIN, END, PROCEDURE > and so on got translated to French equivalents). Then there was a > strong drive to use the French version in schools, universities and so > on. I'm not sure how successful this exercise was in the end, or > whether they repeated it with other languages. > >I once got a close look at the French-ized version of Logo. It was >absolutely incomprehensible. Perhaps, you can't understand French ? This does make it much harder to comprehend!! :-) >Perhaps the French have gone on with their language conversion, but if >they have, they are simply heading for a dead end, because no one else ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >in the world will use that language but them, not when even the >Japanese use the English versions. >-- Why? Do you care if your favorite software package is written in C, Pascal or Modula II or directly in assembler ? You don't see what's inside so what is the difference to you? I believe it is the same for "French" or "English" programming languages. If they write the "best" software on the market, why should they have problems selling it? Maintenance by local people you say? Well, do remember that translating an English computer language into a French computer language mostly only involves changing the table of keywords recognized by the compiler. It is not very hard to make a translator available. When I did my Bachelors degree at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec, we had both a "French Pascal", an "English Pascal" and a "French to English translator". I found that I could work with either pretty much interchangeably. Gilles