Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!grand!rwwetmore
From: rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Canada -- One or two cultures
Message-ID: <28159@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: 4 Aug 89 08:07:07 GMT
References: <89Aug3.145600edt.10404@neat.cs.toronto.edu>
Sender: daemon@watmath.waterloo.edu
Reply-To: rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore)
Distribution: can
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 150

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