The Confederate Flag

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hussar

Legend
Goldomark said:
Roughly 17% of Québécois are bilingual, so it means the majority of us will not be able to get jobs if english is a necessity. And it shouldn't be when you are in Québec.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465127-The-Confederate-Flag/page30#ixzz3j1Y4Fmhd
Are a majority of jobs in Quebec requiring English?

Laporte died by accident. He tried to flee and he was chocked when they tried to hold him back

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465127-The-Confederate-Flag/page30#ixzz3j1YxNgzA
LOL. Ok, now I know you're just trolling. They kidnap Laporte, hold him agains his will, murder him when he tries to escape and you call that an "accident"? Wow.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
To say, that the condition here in the US warrants placement alongside Nazi Germany (even as an example of a lesser case) is ... notable.

There are certainly degrees of discrimination, say, ethnic cleansing as happened in Germany, or more recently in what used to be Yugoslavia, to the Apartheid in South Africa, to the lesser forms which we have in the US.

... which evolved out of slavery, which is (say) somewhere between Apartheid and Nazi Germany.

I find it sobering, and saddening, that the US merits an entry on the scale of comparisons.
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?
 

Dannyalcatraz

Moderator
Staff member
To say, that the condition here in the US warrants placement alongside Nazi Germany (even as an example of a lesser case) is ... notable.

There are certainly degrees of discrimination, say, ethnic cleansing as happened in Germany, or more recently in what used to be Yugoslavia, to the Apartheid in South Africa, to the lesser forms which we have in the US.

... which evolved out of slavery, which is (say) somewhere between Apartheid and Nazi Germany.

I find it sobering, and saddening, that the US merits an entry on the scale of comparisons.

I'm curious, too, how other folks place the US on that scale, in particular, folks from other countries, who, I think, will have a very different perspective than many people in the US.

(This is from the perspective of a person who is mostly white -- I have a mixed Eastern European and Italian ancestry, so my skin has a typical Mediteranean olive cast -- and who has a very limited direct experience with discrimination.)

Thx!

TomB
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:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
So, to be clear, you deny the negative impact of centuries of colonialism on our economy or did you miss that too?
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.

Salaries are lower in Québec than in Canada, if you can translate. The GDP is about a fifth of Canada's while we are a fourth of the population (so less GDP per capita).
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.

We aren't talking about bears.
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!

Like bombings and independentist movements, yes.
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

Explorer
Sigh. Didn't do that. I only offered to examples of discrimination and said Québcois didn't match either.
But it isn't a competition. I won't say that today we are in the same situation as black people in the US or Jews in Nazi Germany.
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.
 

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?
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
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.
And thus the forces that extinguish distinct languages and cultures are emboldened. Hussar, this is an extremely privileged perspective on the differences in language. It's easy to think the impact of dominant modes of economic participation is non-discriminatory when you're natively part of the dominant mode. But when you're not, it's probably a lot easier to see how exclusionary it really is. They must change to interact with your side. They must use a language that is secondary to them, not primary. Their native forms of communication are not suitable for international commerce, for participation. They must adopt yours. It may be in their economic self-interest to do so, but let's not pretend that it's non-discriminatory or entirely benign.
 

Hussar

Legend
And thus the forces that extinguish distinct languages and cultures are emboldened. Hussar, this is an extremely privileged perspective on the differences in language. It's easy to think the impact of dominant modes of economic participation is non-discriminatory when you're natively part of the dominant mode. But when you're not, it's probably a lot easier to see how exclusionary it really is. They must change to interact with your side. They must use a language that is secondary to them, not primary. Their native forms of communication are not suitable for international commerce, for participation. They must adopt yours. It may be in their economic self-interest to do so, but let's not pretend that it's non-discriminatory or entirely benign.
You misunderstand. It's not a case of doing business with the English world. That's not it at all. I gave a perfectly normal example - a Chinese, German and French business person are at a conference in Japan. What language are they going to use?

Whose dominating here? There's not one English speaker in the bunch, but, guess what? English is the language of problem solving. It's the Lingua Franca of the business world. Not because the Americans or the British are forcing it, but because the rest of the world is adopting it. What else would you expect? That every international business must be multilingual polyglots capable of speaking to anyone, anywhere?

That's ridiculous.

This isn't a case of cultural imperialism. The English speaking world isn't driving this. There's a reason that China is now the number one English speaking country in the world. More people speak English (of some degree of proficiency) in China than any other nation in the world. This is what globalism has caused. It's unreasonable to expect all the countries that do business with China to learn Chinese - the writing is far, far too difficult, never minding that trying to write in Chinese on a computer is bloody difficult as well. But China does business with, well, everyone. So, the Chinese have adopted English as the business language.

Cultural imperialism means that the imperial culture forces linguistic changes all the way through the culture. No one is doing that. People aren't advocating English speaking at home or even in their home culture. However, the pragmatism of global business means that if you want to do business with fifteen different countries, you need a Lingua Franca, and, that's become English.

There's a fantastic TED talk about this:

[video]youtube=https://youtu.be/ZpILR21GWao[/video]
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Yet, all my students study English. Why would that be?
Because, post-WWII, the USA has until recently dominated the economic and political landscape of the planet. Because we consume resources and goods like mad, and you want to speak in the language of the people who are buying your stuff.
 

Janx

Adventurer
And thus the forces that extinguish distinct languages and cultures are emboldened. Hussar, this is an extremely privileged perspective on the differences in language. It's easy to think the impact of dominant modes of economic participation is non-discriminatory when you're natively part of the dominant mode. But when you're not, it's probably a lot easier to see how exclusionary it really is. They must change to interact with your side. They must use a language that is secondary to them, not primary. Their native forms of communication are not suitable for international commerce, for participation. They must adopt yours. It may be in their economic self-interest to do so, but let's not pretend that it's non-discriminatory or entirely benign.
I'm sure the wagon wheel maker guy felt the same way when folks stopped using wagons and started driving cars. Why should he change his livelihood? What must HE learn a new trade?

I'm sure a lot of bad things were done that made English become the top dog of languages for business. But like taking land from native americans, that ship has sailed.

I've done business with India, China, and Taiwan and they all spoke English with me when I got on the phone. Nobody requested translators, that was what they spoke when the phone rang. We didn't make them do it, but somehow, they decided long before I was relevant that English was what they'd learn to talk to other businesses.

Yeah, that was convenient for me. If they didn't speak english, we were prepared to hire folks on our side who spoke their language. So let's not bandy the Discrimination card, shall we? Ain't nobody getting hurt except folks who don't get that you have to go along to get along sometimes. If you ain't hurting or stealing, that ain't wrong.

If you live in Quebec, and you want to do business with another country, maybe you should learn English. Not because you're giving up your culture. Or giving in to another power. But because it is always simpler to adapt yourself than it is to expect the other party to accommodate you.

That's what the Asians and the Indians did. They anticipated doing business with America, and they recruited folks who spoke English so they could make taking on business with the US much easier. There are plenty of bi-lingual Americans who became that just for business as well. I didn't need to because by the time I got to the table, the other guys spoke my language.
 

Janx

Adventurer
Because, post-WWII, the USA has until recently dominated the economic and political landscape of the planet. Because we consume resources and goods like mad, and you want to speak in the language of the people who are buying your stuff.
Exactly. I wouldn't ascribe evil intent like Discrimination to it. It's just economics. At some point, some foreign suppliers figured out they'd get more business if they spoke English. And it spread.

Convenient for me. I could just as easily see Mandarin taking over. Heck, that's why Firefly features some Chinese in the mix. Why do you think the FB guy learned it?
 

tomBitonti

Explorer
I've done business with India, China, and Taiwan and they all spoke English with me when I got on the phone. Nobody requested translators, that was what they spoke when the phone rang. We didn't make them do it, but somehow, they decided long before I was relevant that English was what they'd learn to talk to other businesses.
Actually, there was a time when peoples were forced to use English.

Several states, or regions thereof, are effectively bilingual, and that causes huge issues, when it would seem to be a natural outcome.

Thx!

TomB
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Exactly. I wouldn't ascribe evil intent like Discrimination to it.
Stop there for a second.

By no means is all discrimination "evil intent". A great deal of it is not by intent at all - it is by thoughtlessness. Like a great many harmful things humans do, it is done because we are not bothering to think much about what we are doing, including finding rationalizations that make what we are doing acceptable, because that's easier than being thoughtful.

This is why the word "privilege" came up - the people in the dominant position are at great risk of not realizing what they do to those who are not in their situation.

It's just economics.
It being "just economics" does not make it good*. This does not mean we don't need a lingua franca (we do), it means we ought to be cognizant of what that does to those who must adopt the language to get by, rather than be dismissive, and just toss off that others gotta suck up and deal, and we don't give a fig.

If you need a good economic reason for this, it is simple - being respectful means that we will tend to keep our economically dominant position for longer. The French (English, Spanish, and Russians) were not respectful, and their empires crumbled as those they were not respectful to threw them off. The lingua franca is not Franca because of this!



*Either ethically, or for our long-term socio-political position in the world. "Just economics" is by its nature a short-term thing - most economic considerations cannot be taken more than about 5 years ahead, if that. It is "just economics" that has had us dumping carbon dioxide into the air, and we see how that's turning out...
 

Dannyalcatraz

Moderator
Staff member
Because, post-WWII, the USA has until recently dominated the economic and political landscape of the planet. Because we consume resources and goods like mad, and you want to speak in the language of the people who are buying your stuff.
...plus there was that whole British Empire thing, precedant. When the sun does not set on territories you rule, your language will become dominant.

It just so happens that the economic force that supplanted them was a breakaway colony populated by those primarily speaking the same language.
 

Kramodlog

Adventurer
Are a majority of jobs in Quebec requiring English?
Today? No. Cause we voted laws that prohibited that. The laws are still needed to prevent a return to the previous situation. There are still sectors of the economy that are reluctent to this and need to be pushed. The financial sector is one of them.

We also need to push back so called "national institutions" like the Financial Market Authority Harper wants for Canada, as english would become a requirement and non-bilingual Québécois wouldn't get the service they pay for.

LOL. Ok, now I know you're just trolling. They kidnap Laporte, hold him agains his will, murder him when he tries to escape and you call that an "accident"? Wow.
You know there are differences between murder, manslaughter and involontary manslaughter.
 

Ryujin

Adventurer
In the late '80s I worked for a small computer manufacturer, that imported components from Hong Kong. My position was quality control and technical writer. The majority of my co-workers and the company's principals were from Hong Kong, with a few having come from Taiwan. Even back then I had absolutely no need to call in my co-workers for translation, when dealing with suppliers in the Far East. Everyone I spoke to or exchanged mail/faxes (this was before the internet had really taken off) had an adequate command of English.

.... until there was a product failure. Then they suddenly couldn't speak or read English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Advertisement

Top