Talk about obnoxious...

[Munkay]

At first, the land was populated by brown skinned peoples. Then the white man came, made war, and stole the land. They lived there, on their stolen land, smug and secure in their imperialistic ideology that the brown skinned peoples would never again rise up against them. They lorded over all they could see and believed their empire to be secure.

Now, they cry foul about some invader to their lands and the circle is complete. And this old man just can't stop laughing at this whole thing. Heh, reap what you sow, the whirlwind comes for you.

I gotta say the "full circle" analogy falls a little short of the finish line Doc.

The treatment of Native American's by 'white people' is hardly analogous to the current state of affairs with illegal immigration. 'White people' aren't subjugated to the illegal aliens, nor have their belongings been stripped away.

It's entirely possible to make a connection between 'jobs' and 'belongings' to try to justify the analogy, but such a connection is weak at best. It's simply not on the same scale.

It's not exactly apples and oranges, but its pretty close.

Cheers,

Munk

[--Pete]

Hi,

The French language has been merely a lever in the age-old game of power juggling.
[right][snapback]106921[/snapback][/right]

Exactly. If there were only one language, that would remove that 'lever'. Embrace diversity and then use that same diversity to get a better deal? Sounds divisive to me. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either the differences don't matter, and thus cannot be used in the game of politics, or they do and are divisive. Take your pick.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

Hi,
Exactly.  If there were only one language, that would remove that 'lever'.  Embrace diversity and then use that same diversity to get a better deal?  Sounds divisive to me. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  Either the differences don't matter, and thus cannot be used in the game of politics, or they do and are divisive.  Take your pick.

--Pete
[right][snapback]107016[/snapback][/right]

Hi Pete

Just as you have to live with some of the consequences of your country's history, so do we. An administrative decision (that really was a Good Idea™ at the time) started this country as a coalition of Upper and Lower Canada, each of which had language rights in place. There was no diversity - there were two languages supported.

The policy of multi-culturalism has been in place for some thirty-odd years. Canadians, by and large, do wish to embrace diversity. Naturally, there are hold-outs among those who fear losing something to it - mainly the Separatists who are losing their lever. They did not 'embrace diversity'. However, it would be a mistake to assume that Quebecois = Separatist.

Further, you do know better than to suggest that anything 'cannot' be used in the game of politics. ;)

[Occhidiangela]

Two things.

First, you seem to be reading a great deal into what I'm saying. I'm quite sure it isn't all there.

Second, Mr. Fehrenbach's book doesn't seem to have gotten particularly great scholarly reviews, with one councelling quite specifically that this shouldn't be anyone's first book on Texas. (Also, he apparently wrote a rather sloppy book on Mexico, which doesn't exactly endear him to me.) I'll read it if you really recommend it despite all this (I may read it anyway) but do you perhaps have another source that might serve as well?

-Jester
[right][snapback]106962[/snapback][/right]

Really? Reviews written by whom, with what agenda? It is worth pointing out that his book was written in 1969 or so, which puts a couple of decades of political evolution to be treated by others.

If you want to understand Texas, which perhaps you don't, you'd hardly do better than reading Ferenbach as a point of departure. No one is "an end all, be all, all things to all people in one book." Like a lot of places, Texas is a multifaceted enigma, even to people who live here.

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

Hi Pete

Just as you have to live with some of the consequences of your country's history, so do we.    An administrative decision (that really was a Good Idea™ at the time) started this country as a coalition of Upper and Lower Canada, each of which had language rights in place.  There was no diversity - there were two languages supported.

The policy of multi-culturalism has been in place for some thirty-odd years.  Canadians, by and large, do wish to embrace diversity.  Naturally, there are hold-outs among those who fear losing something to it - mainly the Separatists who are losing their lever.  They did not 'embrace diversity'.  However, it would be a mistake to assume that Quebecois = Separatist. 

Further, you do know better than to suggest that anything 'cannot' be used in the game of politics.    ;)
[right][snapback]107031[/snapback][/right]

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.

The cultural differences between Americans and Canadians are undoubtedly reflected in our responses to such issues. Canada is not a melting pot - but it does have an identity, in spite of our "endless" soul-searching. That identity becomes clear when such discussions arise - our identity (just like any other) is contained in the sphere of questions that are considered "open for discussion" and legitimate in the political and public spheres. Our history has conditioned our understanding of accomodating differences, as has that of America. As a cultural partisan, I believe that our way is "better", and as cultural partisans, the same can be said for Pete and Occhi.

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.

[jahcs]

Check this out:

Send a Brick

Pretty funny, but it might get someone's attention. :lol:

[Jester]

Really?  Reviews written by whom, with what agenda?  It is worth pointing out that his book was written in 1969 or so, which puts a couple of decades of political evolution to be treated by others. 

If you want to understand Texas, which perhaps you don't, you'd hardly do better than reading Ferenbach as a point of departure.  No one is "an end all, be all, all things to all people in one book."  Like a lot of places, Texas is a multifaceted enigma, even to people who live here.

Occhi
[right][snapback]107041[/snapback][/right]

Well, Stanley E. Siegel at the University of Houston gives it a fairly positive review, pointing out that he does a "very creditable" job of putting all of Texas' history into one volume. (Quite the volume, too, thumbing through it. 700 pages, yikes!)

So far, so good.

Robert C. Cotner at the University of Texas again is fairly positive overall, but warns that it is not a good work for someone without a background in Texan history (which I don't). It is difficult to distinguish between when he is using someone else's solid research and when he is using his own opinion, since he has neither footnotes nor a bibliography, for style reasons apparently.

Okay, well, that would make me want to read this book after I had another book or two, perhaps more recent (and for the love of god, shorter) than Fehrenbach's.

Lewis L. Gould, hailing again from the University of Texas, gives the book an absolutely savage review, calling his sources outdated, his interpretations flawed, and "serves only to underscore the dangers that await the unwary dilletante..."

Ouch. Well, who knows. He seems to be a credible scholar (google yields a series of books, all seemingly good, although perhaps a deep search would say otherwise), maybe someone just pissed in his cornflakes that morning.

So there you have it. All of the above reviews are scholarly, and from journals that I would trust, although I don't know them as well as perhaps you do. Three reviews, one positive, one which cautions me that it shouldn't be my first book, and a third which throws it to the dogs. Add that into your endorsement, and I have a book that I'd probably read when I have the time, but that I'd like buttressed by other books on the topic first. Hence, I asked you if you knew any. If you can't think of any, I'll hunt some down myself, and then we'll see.

However, his explanation of the 1848 war, which was the event I was referring to, did not contradict my understanding of events, although he was clearly more sympathetic to Polk that I am (or will ever be, most likely). Polk wanted California, and he didn't care if he had to start a war to get it. He manipulated the Texas situation to start a "cult of the victim" war, where he could claim American blood had been spilled on American soil (a dubious proposition at best, and a fraudulent one at worst) and promptly proceeded to conquer what he wanted from Mexico. No surprise, the US' overwhelming military superiority crushed the Mexicans, a treaty was signed, and that was that. If you think that's a perfectly acceptable way to run your international relations, then I doubt we will ever agree on this topic.

-Jester

[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

[Chaerophon]

Occhi, I think that you may have misconstrued my comments, which is, again, the result of a lack of familiarity with our cultural situation here. I don't think that people who voluntarily choose to come to our country should refuse to conduct their public lives in one of the two official languages, nor do I believe we have any obligation to meet any demands as far as accomodating their language in the public sphere (I don't, on the other hand, disagree with free language education for such immigrants...I think that the expense is well worth the payoff) The fact is, they CHOSE to come here, and in so doing, chose to adopt certain elements of the common political culture and heritage that characterizes Canada.

The difference in the Canadian context is this: the Quebecois did not choose to be conquered. At the time of their conquering - and ever since - the political culture of the Quebecois has been largely conducted in French. In Canada, we have laws in place that demand our public have access to schooling, public documents, etc. in either of the two official languages, and I am not a fan of Quebec's "Bill 101" which denied that (in many/most cases) English should not have such an equal status in Quebec. Nonetheless, when I talk about respecting language rights, I am talking about a specific instance - that of the Quebecois, and not "language rights in general". The rest of my post should be taken in this context, and not as a "general defense" of the language rights of any and all immigrants to Canada.

[Occhidiangela]

The difference in the Canadian context is this: the Quebecois did not choose to be conquered.  At the time of their conquering - and ever since - the political culture of the Quebecois has been largely conducted in French.  In Canada, we have laws in place that demand our public have access to schooling, public documents, etc. in either of the two official languages, and I am not a fan of Quebec's "Bill 101" which denied that (in many/most cases) English should not have such an equal status in Quebec.  Nonetheless, when I talk about respecting language rights, I am talking about a specific instance - that of the Quebecois, and not "language rights in general".  The rest of my post should be taken in this context, and not as a "general defense" of the language rights of any and all immigrants to Canada.
[right][snapback]107073[/snapback][/right]

I better understand your context, thanks for spelling out the detail, though I still find it strange. I don't think anyone "chooses to be conquered." :unsure: But it hapens.

My view on history is "it sucks to be conquered." That the conqueror was acting benevolently in 1763, good for the Brits, doesn't mean that their political compromise didn't hold its own risks. (IIRC, the deal was tied to the resolution of The 7 Years war in Europe, and was thus between sovereigns across the seas.) The set up sowed the seeds of disunion. Not uncommon. The comromise made in 1789, vis a vis slavery, sowed the seeds of disunion in nineteenth century America. Aren't you glad, away up there in the Great White North, that you didn't have that political mess to clean up? <_<

When you have kids, which I hope you do, you'll find out that what you thought was benevolent toleration is interpreted as license. :lol: That scales pretty well into the macro level.

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

I better understand your context, thanks for spelling out the detail, though I still find it strange. I don't think anyone "chooses to be conquered." unsure.gif But it hapens.

No, of course not. I just happen to believe that, in terms of justice, this is what distinguishes the "right to language accomodation" in our contemporary context. We're liberal, we believe in freedom of choice: immigrants choose to come here, the Quebecois were already here when we came.

A good book on the subject (in fact, a revolutionary book in political theory, here and elsewhere) is Will Kymlicka's "Multiculturalism". It may not be to your taste, but it is definitely the best statement of where I (and I think the average Canadian who has actually thought about it) am coming from. It is liberal, but not "post-modern" by any means - and quite solidly grounded in addressing politics in a realistic way. (Of course, there is some post-modern thought that I am very interested in, but I suspect that you might not be a fan... :D)

[Occhidiangela]

No, of course not.&nbsp; I just happen to believe that, in terms of justice, this is what distinguishes the "right to language accomodation" in our contemporary context.&nbsp; We're liberal, we believe in freedom of choice: immigrants choose to come here, the Quebecois were already here when we came.&nbsp;

A good book on the subject (in fact, a revolutionary book in political theory, here and elsewhere) is Will Kymlicka's "Multiculturalism".&nbsp; It may not be to your taste, but it is definitely the best statement of where I (and I think the average Canadian who has actually thought about it) am coming from.&nbsp; It is liberal, but not "post-modern" by any means - and quite solidly grounded in addressing politics in a realistic way.&nbsp; (Of course, there is some post-modern thought that I am very interested in, but I suspect that you might not be a fan... :D)
[right][snapback]107082[/snapback][/right]

Better to take a look at it and try to understand, than to reject it out of hand, I suppose. Recent book, or has it been out a while?

*tunes guitar to Kumbaya*

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

Better to take a look at it and try to understand, than to reject it out of hand, I suppose. Recent book, or has it been out a while?

*tunes guitar to Kumbaya*

Occhi
[right][snapback]107087[/snapback][/right]

First edition was in '96 I believe... There is a chapter that refers specifically to the situation in Quebec.

[Occhidiangela]

We're liberal, we believe in freedom of choice: immigrants choose to come here, the Quebecois were already here when we came. 
[right][snapback]107082[/snapback][/right]

I'd hate to ignore, while we are being all altruistic and liberal -- more Kumbaya plays in the background -- the Acadians who were deported.

*Flash back to 1755, and lead singer Lawrence, of the Halifax Redcoats*

Someone's leaving, Lord
Cajuns gone
Someone's leaving, Lord
Cajuns gone
Someone's leaving, Lord
Cajuns gone
Good riddance
Cajuns gone


On the wrong side in the wrong war, or political tug of war, the "sucks to be conquered problem" isn't as foreign to Canada's past as the 1763 treaty might suggest. ;) Having been conveniently "cleansed" from Canada, they resurrected themselves, Phoenix like, and created gumbo! (mild license with history here, of course) And Tobasco!

Sadly for them, their descendents now eat crawdads rather than cod and backbacon. Then, oh, the humanity, these blackguards foisted blackened redfish upon an unsuspecting planet! This caused an overfishing of redfish in the Laguna Madre that nearly shut sport fishing down for reds, back in the 1980's. Evil, pernicious, Cajuns! :lol: You were well rid of them. :P

FWIW: Canadian Maritime music kicks the dickens out of Zydeco. :P

Occhi

[GriffonSpade]

Will civil war be our voice?

Hi,

Not sure if it was CNN or FOX this past week, talked about a CIVIL WAR 2 with the Mexicans here in the USA. I can't find this discussion even tho I Googled...did find this interesting read&nbsp; :P
ps: I live in Mesa AZ&nbsp; :wub:

QUOTE
(SNIP)

It is clear that the Bush Administration will draw some sort of line in the sand with their new Mexican slave labor policy. But the rhetoric here in the Pacific Northwest has become increasingly elevated in the past week and uniquely not from the socialists.

I only say this as someone who was born and raised in the southwest so I know all too well about the Mexican flags being shoved in peoples faces. I know all too well about their machismo (the other night on Fox that Mexican professor from UCLA wanted to physically hurt Michelle Malkin, he couldn't stand a woman telling him anything). I also know ALL too well about their violence and lack of reason and nazi-like dedication to MEXICO. I grew up having to make concessions on simple things like intelligent rhetoric, knowledge and patriotism to my country just to fit in! These are the demands being made by these nationalist transformists...they seek their atzlan, their la raza unida-Do we just hand it over? Do we just let our administration destroy us?

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or&nbsp; INTERNAL INVADER.

Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

Accept nothing less than deportation! They attempt to lose deportation in a mountain of rhetoric citing logistics...But I propose, what cost is the law? Will civil war be our voice? (SNIP)

[right][snapback]106983[/snapback][/right]

I have the perfect idea! Lets whip up a bunch of those Rabid Female Supremicists, give them guns, call them a militia, and have THEM patrol the border for illegal mexican immigrants! If there are any Illegal Mexicans Immigrants or Rabid Females Supremicists left, they should be easier to deal with! It's Foolproof!

[Occhidiangela]

It's Foolproof!
[right][snapback]107138[/snapback][/right]

Except for one small problem.

You probably can't fool them into doing that. ;)

Occhi

[GriffonSpade]

Except for one small problem.

You probably can't fool them into doing that.&nbsp; ;)

Occhi
[right][snapback]107277[/snapback][/right]

Dang, while making my foolproof plan I forgot to include something for the non-fools! doh!

[ShadowHM]

I'd hate to ignore, while we are being all altruistic and liberal -- more Kumbaya plays in the background -- the Acadians who were deported.&nbsp;


[right][snapback]107091[/snapback][/right]

Without going back through my poorly organized boxes of historical journals, there was a difference between the Acadians and the Quebecois that did have a bearing on how they were treated.

The Acadians, apparently mainly due to the guidance of one of their priests, refused to sign pledges of allegiance to the British. They were given many chances to do so, and quite a few 'stern warnings' before they were deported.

It was certainly tragic. But they were given plenty of opportunities to choose to stay and live in peace under new 'management'.

The colonists in Quebec traded one group of 'management' for another (i.e. a new group of tax collectors) and were quite content to carry on in all other ways as they had before.

[Archon_Wing]

I have the perfect idea! Lets whip up a bunch of those Rabid Female Supremicists, give them guns, call them a militia, and have THEM patrol the border for illegal mexican immigrants! If there are any Illegal Mexicans Immigrants or Rabid Females Supremicists left, they should be easier to deal with! It's Foolproof!
[right][snapback]107138[/snapback][/right]

Yes, but what if the rabies gets transferred?

[Occhidiangela]

The colonists in Quebec traded one group of 'management' for another&nbsp; (i.e.&nbsp; a new group of tax collectors) and were quite content to carry on in all other ways as they had before.
[right][snapback]107419[/snapback][/right]

And then, what happened? Did their linguistic Jones overcome common sense? :P

Occhi