Talk about obnoxious...

[Occhidiangela]

Not to mention, Occhi's ethical determinism to the contrary, I think that there is something honourable in respecting the language rights of a conquered nation - which is what we have in Quebec, whether we like it or not.  I do not believe in the "two nations thesis" of Canadian identity; however, just as we have attempted, in modern times, to "do right" by the natives, I think that certain kinds of accomodation are due the Quebecois - if only as a demonstration of the purportedly "peaceful" deliberative/conversational ideals of Canadian political culture.

Ultimately, there is no objective way to distinguish between the two.  It would seem that the best we can do is communicate these differences in good faith, such that they might be respected.  I'm not suggesting outright relativism; only that I think we can each believe that we are "right" without deriding the other *cough* Pete *cough* :D.
[right][snapback]107049[/snapback][/right]

Chaer:

I don't disagree with you that learning another's language (that is a two way street, by the way, which is NOT embraced by a whole host if emigres) is an excellent path to lowering barriers between people. I don't see what "respecting another's language rights" has to do with that when there is no quid pro quo. There is a blatant disrespect for English exercised by a significant portion of recent arrivals, aided and abetted by ek=lements of "I hate America" factions within our own borders. It is another signal that the migration is not innocent, that the long term intent in Mexico City is to redraw the border northward.

Language rights? Interesting concept, the codification of the Tower of Babel into law? Is that in your Canadian Constitution? Or is that in one of your other framework docments. Been a while since I read through your constitution, based on a RB discussion a few years ago. (Thanks to Skandranon for the nudge)

Commonality in language is a lubricant to social friction, though I don't dispute that a price is paid if a language falls from use: there is a potential loss of flavor and nuance, and meaning. I had heard eskimos have dozens of words to describe snow, each with subtle nuances.

This is an old challenge. The Tower of Babel story is a metaphor, at the very least, for the trouble in "can't we all get along" that language dissimilarity imposes. A lesser illustration is Professor Higgin's plaintive lament in My Fair Lady regarding verbal class distinctions and lack of "one common language," within a national context. Language separates people into nations. (As distinct from nation states.) Likewise, it a tool to indentify smaller groups. Ghetto slang is a very visible, thanks to its presence in popular slang, demonstration of self segregation, of deliberate non assimilation, and of deliberate self classificaiton. The jargon and cant of pilots that I am intimately familiar with, and the sign language that goes with it, has a similar effect, if less pronounced in popular culture.

One of the striking tools used to prop up the identity of Israel, both as a nation and a nation state when it was founded in 1948, was the adaptation of Hebrew as the official language. Strking, to my perspective, because many emigres arriving from war torn Europe spoke tongues other than Yiddish or Hebrew as a first language. They brought an oleo of dialects and languages with them. Standardization helped boost group identity, though I get the feeling that it was not without some internal friction. Depends on who is telling the story, I think.

When a conquest occurs, be it a long or short term project, local terms and usages tend to seep into the new languge, as do local forms. The Latin brought to the Gauls of France was corrupted, or transformed, by the Frankish tribes who made up the next waver of conquerors. The fusion of Arabic terms into the corrupted Latin and Gothic of Spain is another example. Mariposa, not papillon, nor farfalla. ;)

A complete over writing seems uncommon. My understanding of English's rapid assimilation of new terms doubtless colors that view. Kebab, anyone? :whistling: Significant vocabulary remains, even if vestigially, of aboriginal dialects: Connecticut, Chicago, Comanche, and so forth. I also noted the outcry in France, this is a few years old, bemoaning English terms creeping into the language.

Because language is so important to cultural and societal interaction, it is no surprise language has immense influence on group identity, due to how commonality is expressed within a group, how a group separates itself from other groups -- slang or dialect. Of course it is used as a political tool, politics is group activity at a basic level. Pretending that language is a neutral influence, and innocent, seems to me an Ostrich's approach.

At a more esoteric level, language is used politically to try and shape a problem, or a debate, which brings me back to the Big Lie about illegal immigrants. The silence on the dirty underside of illegal immigration is deafening.

Y'all don't hear much about the Catch-22 along the border, but it is there. Livestock rustling on ranches. Thievery and assault as migrants make their way north. The citizens are being left to fend for themselves. It is a strking flash back to "Indian Country" in the Southwest, nineteenth century, with a twist. In some counties, the political machines are using this as a method of ethnically cleansing Anglos, and for that matter some unabashedly American descendants of previous Mexican families or immigrants from the land: via legal pressure against those taking action against illegal squatters, rustlers, and thieves, or via "benign neglect." This is done with the purpose of reinforcing their petty fiefdoms through patronage to the new arrivals, the supplicants.

The corrupt hacienda system is making a comeback. That isn't progress, that is a step backward, socially. Political machines in South Texas, and the usual incestuous cronyism, didn't end with LBJ's old supporters fading away. Others have filled the vacuum.

The urbanized decision makers and pundits are blind, in my opinion wilfully so, to the negative impact on safety of persons and property, and the quality of life and the safety of citizens whose homes, ranches, and farms are along the path of migration.

Who am I fooling? The urban crowd in my own country don't give a flying fruitbat about what happens in "flyover country," and other points "way out there."

Why should you? It isn't "your problem."

Occhi

EDIT due to woefully sloppy writing