In the interests of fairness (I have complained previously about stupidity qui vient du côté francophone du pays) and because this sort of behaviour is myopic and unhelpful (as well as entirely aggravating), I felt I needed to write about this.
The Globe and Mail
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080404.wcoessay0405/BNStory/specialComment/home) has just published an essay in the wake of the protests in New Brunswick to keep the status quo of French education in schools over there.
The article does a reasonably good job of giving an idea of the state of bilingualism in Canada (with a few editorial flourishes, such as comparing bilingual Canadians schooled in immersion to France's Enarques, an idea which is beyond hilarious). The problem is that most anglo canadians can't seem to be arsed to learn and use the other language and of course that francophones feel (somewhat rightly) under attack. Ahh such is the life of minority status.
What is most annoying (and saddening) about the article isn't the article itself but the comments generated by the article (Canadians can be such idiots, English or French). Apart from the usual gibberish about how it would be more 'useful' to learn Chinese or Spanish (we can't even manage to learn French, lets go trying to gallivant towards learning a whole different script!) there's the classic Anglo Canadian obsession with money. In Canada, du côté English au moins, we are penny wise and pound foolish. Canada wastes money on lots of things, why not spend a bit of that money on a language that (whether you like it or not) help found the bloody nation!? And to blame the Quebecois for bilingualism is absurd. Lots of Quebecois don't like bilingualism and just want to be left alone. However, recent events in Belgium suggests that creating a highly decentralised (even more decentralised than Canada) country along linguistic lines is not something that is particularly healthy or good for the nation. Unlike les belges, we don't even have a made-in-Canada monarch to symbolise the nation.
Also I have no idea why it is that some Anglo Canadians get so worked up (STILL!) after 20 some years have passed that French (oh my god!) appears as well as English on tubes of toothpaste and cereal. If it really bothers you that much, just turn the cereal box over the other side for chrissakes!
Anyways here are a few examples of what has been said:
Voice of reason (probably from New Brunswick).
Devon White from Canada writes: Another column that misses the fundamental point: New Brunswick is not like Quebec, Ontario, B.C. , Alberta, etc.
The immersion issue is not a Canadian issue. It is a New Brunswick issue. New Brunswick is the only bilingual province in the country. No one is saying that everyone in Canada should be bilingual, but in many parts of New Brunswick it is a necessity. French is alive and prospering there.
And yes, the Legislature of New Brunswick is a functionally bilingual place. Most of the people I went to immersion with have maintained a strong standard of French (many of whom using it in their jobs) and speak it because they enjoy it and because it's professionally beneficial.
So please, stop comparing New Brunswick to the rest of Canada. It is an entirely different issue there.
One from someone un peu plus detraqué (c'est pas necessaire d'être moins franc, il ne comprendra rien de toute façon)
Dave Woodsman from Canada writes: And one last comment from me. Let's just stop equating being bilingual with speaking French, period. Naturally, speaking more than one language, and reading and writing in other languages, as well, is good for the brain. However, none of those other languages should ever be French.
French is a dying language. The number of people in the world who are fluent in it falls by millions every single year, and has done so for decades. The only Europeans other than the French who speak it are all over 50. Young Europeans speak German, Italian, or Russian, and often all three. Teaching Canadians French is like teaching them Latin or Greek. French is a language no one of any importance or value in the world speaks anymore.
Please, bilingualism does not mean speaking French. Only someone living in the 1940s would ever waste their time learning to be fluent in French.
And finally a little bit of analysis:
Swifty J from Mariposa, Canada writes: What a hopeless muddle. I mean the article and comments, but of course they are simply a reflection of the hopeless muddle that is the so-called 'debate' over the French/English fact in Canada.
Most people can't even disentangle the concepts of official and individual bilingualism, for crying out loud. And then there's all the mythology that informs the various positions. To take just two prominent examples:
Rumours of the endangerment of French on the Island of Montreal are greatly exaggerated, but they do serve some agendas. They ignore the fact that French is thriving as a second or third language among immigrants and especially their children and, yes, even (some) migrants from the ROC.
Canards about the omnipotence of 'the French' in the civil service are likewise exaggerated. If 'the French' hold all the cards, why is the vast majority of the federal Translation Bureau's work from English to French?
Which is not to say I think Canada's official bilingualism policy, and related provincial policies, have been a success. Clearly they've been misguided and/or wasteful in many ways. But a debate founded on myths, half-truths, ancient grudges, prejudice and thinly veiled hate is no debate at all. And that's most of what I'm seeing here, and it's probably what you'd see on, say, La Presse's website.
It's our national room-in-Hell and I don't expect to see it change any time soon...
William MacKenzie from Barrie, Canada writes: Sue, it has only failed because most Anglo-Canadians do not see (and rightly so, according to many) that they have any need to learn another language. Bilingualism was designed to shore up French-speaking communities outside Quebec, the thinking being that the more Quebec is isolated, the greater the danger to national unity. Now, of course, we could simply revoke bilingualism as a feature of federal government policy and encourage Quebec to separate. Then we'd be done with the whole problem and we (anglo-Canadians) could become what we really are: Americans.
C. B. from Canada writes: Mr. William MacKenzie has taken the words out of my mouths. Indeed, revoking bilingualism would mean that a quarter of Canada's population, mostly in Quebec, would become second-class citizens in their own country.
Swifty of course has it down pat. We're stuck in this room with each other (like we're stuck in a country with each other). We don't understand and our fear and jealousy of the other makes understanding impossible, so we look for little things, money (inconsequential really because Canada has so much of it) and writing on toothpaste tubes and make a big deal about them. On the otherside, surtout au Quebec, there is also the strain of a hunker down mentality, of fear and loathing. O mon pays, what is wrong with you????
Finally, Anglo Canadians really need to own up to (but never will, it's like the very few men who manage to own up to the fact that gender equality doesn't yet exist) that they speak from a position of linguistic power. Of course if you're unilingual, you are much less likely to be aware of the overwhelming linguistic power of English and its effect on other people. Such is life.