Kramodlog
Naked and living in a barrel
Sigh. Didn't do that. I only offered to examples of discrimination and said Québcois didn't match either.
The Confederate Flag
- Status
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Don't read too much into a comparison with Nazi Germany. As he pointed out, he's listing different levels of discrimination to compare the Quebecois experience to, not to compare to each other.
Hussar
Legend
Look, [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], what I've never understood about the separatist movement is this: What do you expect to gain from a separate Quebec? How do you figure that a separate Quebec will be better off than one within confederation? How will a cash strapped newly-independent Quebec stop the Americans from turning you into a giant theme park?
If you dig deep enough in any people's history, you're likely to find hacked up bodies & other atrocities. Trying to rank whose country- or faith- did the worstest to the mostest is pretty much a futile effort.
Just looking at the USA, we have slavery, a war to preserve/spread slavery, post-slavery oppression of a variety of forms, genocide of Native Americans, virtual slavery of Asians in the pre-1900s, Japanese Americans in concentration camps, political and military support of brutal dictatorships just because they're anti-communist, medical & military experimentation on non-consenting people (mostly of color or having mental incapacity), etc.
So, what...hundreds of millions dead because of the darker side of the USA?
Others may lag behind us in numbers, but probably only because of time (fewer people when they were at their darkest) and technology (we can kill many, more quickly than ever). The evil impulses were still there.
I mean, what would the Huns, Mongols, Vikings, Crusaders, Ottomans, Mughals, Aztecs, Apache Romans, Persians or Hellenistic Greeks done with machine guns, mustard gas or nukes in their arsenals?
Last edited:
We have Louisiana for that.
If there still is a major effect left over from that, it isn't something that will go away with separation. They aren't going to deal better with you if you draw a national border, and sovereignty will not remove your economic interdependence with them. You'll be in pretty much the same situation, but with *less* input on what they do, rather than more. If you need them more than they need you, it doesn't improve your situation.
Within Quebec, how many of the executive positions are held by Quebecois? If, in general, business in Quebec is run by Quebecois, it gets hard to blame the lower salary on direct discrimination. You have to say that the relatively depressed economy is due to discrimination overall. But then we have a complication - as previously noted, how much of that is due to discrimination, and how much of it is because separatist activities have made the province less attractive to do business, by making long-term stability a question? It may have less to do with race, and more to do with risk assessment with an area that wants to change the rules.
It's a descriptive metaphor, and the idea holds. "I get to kill people, and *you* have to behave ethically," is pretty much a non-starter. This has been shown to be true overall - doesn't matter if you are dealing with - no government deals politely if you start killing their officials. Duh!
You seem pretty entrenched in the pattern of always pointing out how they were bad, without really owning your own side of it. That merely perpetuates issues, without solving them. Have fun with that.
tomBitonti
Adventurer
They are put side by side. Sure, big different between the two. It was the act of putting them together that struck me.
And what was sobering is that the placement has even a little resonance.
There has been a lot of institutional discrimination here in the US, well into the 20'th century, and continuing now. When I was growing up, I had the impression that the civil rights movement of the mid-century resolved a lot of the problems, but events of the last decade show that the problems are a lot worse than I thought when I was younger.
Thx!
TomB
Hussar
Legend
Thing is, which I keep asking, as far as Quebec goes, what institutional discrimination?
When you have your own system of law, your language and culture protected by law, your own schools and social programs, your own police force, language specific military organizations, and a huge leg up in gaining government employment, I'm really having a tough time seeing the discrimination.
When you have your own system of law, your language and culture protected by law, your own schools and social programs, your own police force, language specific military organizations, and a huge leg up in gaining government employment, I'm really having a tough time seeing the discrimination.
Hussar
Legend
Y'know, it's kinda funny. I work in Japan, teaching English and have done so for a long time. I work at the local Nissan factory here in Kyushu, from time to time. Now, Nissan is owned, at least a large part of it is, by Renault, a French company. The CEO of Nissan is French.
Yet, all my students study English. Why would that be? You'd think in a French company, where the local workers have never studied French, they'd be pushing French language studies. Could it be because English is the Lingua Franca of business and the rest of the world is spending billions of dollars on English language education? When a French, German and Japanese businessman sit down together, you can pretty much guarantee that they are speaking English.
[MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION] made a point that speaking English at work is discriminatory. No, it isn't. Everyone has an equal opportunity to learn English and do business. It would be discriminatory if other languages were accepted, but not French. But, that's not the issue. Everyone, no matter what their first language is, is going to do business in English.
If I applied to Laval University to do my Master's degree, I would be required to take a French proficiency test. Is that discriminatory? No, not at all. It's a French language school. I'd take the exact same test as any other non-French speaker and have exactly the same chances of being accepted. The same is true for English education in Canada. If you don't speak English, you are required to take an English proficiency test (typically the TOIEC or possibly the IELTS) before being accepted. Again, there is no discrimination since the opportunity is equal for any non-English speaker. It isn't harder for a mono-lingual French speaker to go to an English Canadian university than any other non-English speaker. Again, no discrimination.
No discrimination does not mean that all things must be in your language and in your culture. If you want to go to a school that's in another language, you have to learn that language, end of story. It would be discriminatory if French speakers were barred from English schools based on the fact that they are French. But, that's not what's going on. They are being barred because they don't speak the language and cannot do the work, same as anyone else.
When you are the same as everyone else, there isn't any discrimination going on. A basic, fundamental requirement of going to a school is the ability to conduct classes in that language. If you can't do that, then you can't go. I suppose if you want to get hyper pedantic about it, that's discrimination of a sorts, but, not one that is recognized as bad in any way. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, barring French Canadians from learning English so that they could conduct business on an international stage or attend an English school.
I find it rather shocking that anyone would advocate NOT learning English in today's business world. How in the heck could you possibly succeed without it?
Yet, all my students study English. Why would that be? You'd think in a French company, where the local workers have never studied French, they'd be pushing French language studies. Could it be because English is the Lingua Franca of business and the rest of the world is spending billions of dollars on English language education? When a French, German and Japanese businessman sit down together, you can pretty much guarantee that they are speaking English.
[MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION] made a point that speaking English at work is discriminatory. No, it isn't. Everyone has an equal opportunity to learn English and do business. It would be discriminatory if other languages were accepted, but not French. But, that's not the issue. Everyone, no matter what their first language is, is going to do business in English.
If I applied to Laval University to do my Master's degree, I would be required to take a French proficiency test. Is that discriminatory? No, not at all. It's a French language school. I'd take the exact same test as any other non-French speaker and have exactly the same chances of being accepted. The same is true for English education in Canada. If you don't speak English, you are required to take an English proficiency test (typically the TOIEC or possibly the IELTS) before being accepted. Again, there is no discrimination since the opportunity is equal for any non-English speaker. It isn't harder for a mono-lingual French speaker to go to an English Canadian university than any other non-English speaker. Again, no discrimination.
No discrimination does not mean that all things must be in your language and in your culture. If you want to go to a school that's in another language, you have to learn that language, end of story. It would be discriminatory if French speakers were barred from English schools based on the fact that they are French. But, that's not what's going on. They are being barred because they don't speak the language and cannot do the work, same as anyone else.
When you are the same as everyone else, there isn't any discrimination going on. A basic, fundamental requirement of going to a school is the ability to conduct classes in that language. If you can't do that, then you can't go. I suppose if you want to get hyper pedantic about it, that's discrimination of a sorts, but, not one that is recognized as bad in any way. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, barring French Canadians from learning English so that they could conduct business on an international stage or attend an English school.
I find it rather shocking that anyone would advocate NOT learning English in today's business world. How in the heck could you possibly succeed without it?
- Status
Similar Threads
