Richmond, B.C., considers banning Chinese-only signage

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I understand GlassCity's point.

A major part of a community's collective life takes place in retail businesses including restaurants, cafés, corner stores, etc.

If a significant portion of this is written and communicated in a language (and even more in characters) that a significant portion of the population cannot understand, then this may be viewed as exclusionary.

Add to this all of the other stuff that exist in community like social, recreational and sporting clubs, etc. If all of their signage, materials and communications are in the foreign language, then that's another barrier for people who can't read it or speak it.

Of course, the classic libertarian answer is: if you don't like it, open up your own businesses in your language and start your own clubs.

But it's more complicated than that. And it's not necessarily a question of not allowing people from group X to get together and speak Xese, all of which is normal.

It's a question of the functioning and cohesion of the wider community. And is more acute when a specific group becomes a majority in a locality like it has in Richmond. There aren't really that many places like this in Canada.

Again, if a community has a majority of non English speakers as their first language, you are kidding yourself if you are think you are being a "full participant" simply by virtue that you are surrounded by English advertisements.

As many people have said, if you enter an establishment that targets a different demographic than you, you aren't going to be refused service, and you will likely have no problem participating in an exchange of service (whether it be for meals or bikinis). You are kidding yourself if you think the only difference between being a full participant in the culture is having an English advertisement to target you.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Again, if a community has a majority of non English speakers as their first language, you are kidding yourself if you are think you are being a "full participant" simply by virtue that you are surrounded by English advertisements.

As many people have said, if you enter an establishment that targets a different demographic than you, you aren't going to be refused service, and you will likely have no problem participating in an exchange of service (whether it be for meals or bikinis). You are kidding yourself if you think the only difference between being a full participant in the culture is having an English advertisement to target you.

I would suspect that signage is only the most visible manifestation of a broader phenomenon and trend.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Acajack

For those who went to diverse schools where certain specific groups were quite large, was there a rule about kids having to speak English in the school or were they allowed to speak whatever they wanted in the halls, cafeteria, etc.?

I am just wondering, not because of the social engineering aspect some of you might suspect, but on a simple question of disciplinary practicality where a kid can say "I am gonna fucking kill you" or "you're a cocksucking faggot" in a language teachers don't understand...

My high school had somewhat of a significant Latin American population, which was non-existent when I started Grade 9 (we were about 1799 white students and exactly 1 black student) and swelled to about 1/6 of the population by the time I graduated - London had a large surge of immigrants from Colombia, El Salvador, and to a lesser extent Mexico in the early 2000s. Almost all were from Colombia and almost all stuck to themselves and did not speak English, though there were a few notable exceptions. I helped out in a Grade 10 science class when I was in Grade 12, and the teacher told me to mark the "immigrants" more easily if they didn't speak English. Quite a few of them went to work in the store where I was later working, and while by then they spoke enough English to work with the customers, some refused to associate with people other than their own.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

As a native anglophone, I'd say that referring to a restaurant as a 'store' sounds a bit funny in most contexts.

Technically a "store" can refer to anyplace where things are sold, though if I sit down to eat at a restaurant I don't think of them as selling me something, I think of them as providing a service. If I'm going to a "store" I'm going somewhere to buy groceries or clothing, not a meal to sit down and eat. Tim Hortons refers to their locations as "stores" probably more than others.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by geotag277

If you want to interact with everybody "fully" you have to learn their language, there is no way around that. Just because someone can talk to you in English doesn't mean they have an ability to "fully" express themselves in English. It's not a realistic expectation and people will be at varying stages of expressing themselves in English. To be a true "full participant" and fully interact with people, you can't get around it.

They are targeting Chinese speakers in their advertisements, and it is no different than an accounting firm targeting accountants to work for them by using the Income Tax Act in their advertisements, or a mathematician using calculus in their advertisement, or a bikini advertisement using C-Cup breasts in their advertisements. The distinct you draw is arbitrary and amounts to complaining that you aren't the target market for every single advertisement you see. If you don't understand Chinese, you simply aren't in the demographics that the advertisement is aiming to appeal too. Boo hoo.

Having a bikini ad is different from a Chinese one, because at least I know what the bikini one is for. Chinese ads basically say that we don't care about anybody that isn't Chinese.

I may not be a "full participant" just due to having English on everything, but at least I'm not being blatantly ignored.

Also thanks a lot Acajack, you're helping me a lot putting my thoughts into words.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I would suspect that signage is only the most visible manifestation of a broader phenomenon and trend.

Precisely when we get into dangerous territory. Invoking the government in enforce our arbitrary standards of what it means to live and "assimilate" into our own arbitrary standards of what it means to live in Canada.

As long as we all admit we are attacking the symptoms not the cause.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Having a bikini ad is different from a Chinese one, because at least I know what the bikini one is for. Chinese ads basically say that we don't care about anybody that isn't Chinese.

I may not be a "full participant" just due to having English on everything, but at least I'm not being blatantly ignored.

Also thanks a lot Acajack, you're helping me a lot putting my thoughts into words.

So you now admit that full participant has nothing to do with it, you just don't like not being targeted by an ad?

Well, it's up to you to spend the time to understand an ad, whether it's in Chinese or it's an impressionist painting or it's calculus or it requires understanding the Income Tax Act. You aren't being ignored, you are making the concious decision to ignore an advertisement in a different language. The ad may inspire some to learn what the Chinese characters mean, just like some people might be inspired by a Google advertisement invoking calculus to understand abstract mathematical concepts, which could scarcely be considered English to begin with.

All ads are excluding those who can't be arsed to understand them or think about them, drawing the line at language is arbitrary.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Precisely when we get into dangerous territory. Invoking the government in enforce our arbitrary standards of what it means to live and "assimilate" into our own arbitrary standards of what it means to live in Canada.

As long as we all admit we are attacking the symptoms not the cause.

More than some type of sinister plot, I think this actually speaks to different interpretations of what Canadian multiculturalism means.

The father of a good childhood friend of mine was actually one of the pen-holders of the original multiculturalism policies that were drawn up in the 1970s. Himself an immigrant and a visible minority, I don't think he had even been in Canada for a decade when he got the call to work on that project.

According to him, and according to what I have also read, the original idea was that multiculturalism was primarily a tool to fight racism and foster societal harmony.

It was of course presented as an alternative to the Great American Melting Pot which was deemed too one-sided and narrow ("check all that old stuff and the door, forget about it and become American"), but it was more integrative than its generally acknowledged in today's Canada: "bring the stuff you brought with you and graft it onto the Canadian mosaic to enrich it".

It's not about existing outside of the mosaic in a parallel reality. Your contribution to the mosaic is valued and welcomed (perhaps more than in the U.S. melting pot), but there is still an expectation that a graft will take place.

It never was about implanting little Amritsars, Beiruts, Kyivs, Taipeis and Guadalajaras all over the country and having them replicate (as much as possible) the old country's society.

[kwoldtimer]

edit.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

More than some type of sinister plot, I think this actually speaks to different interpretations of what Canadian multiculturalism means.

The father of a good childhood friend of mine was actually one of the pen-holders of the original multiculturalism policies that were drawn up in the 1970s. Himself an immigrant and a visible minority, I don't think he had even been in Canada for a decade when he got the call to work on that project.

According to him, and according to what I have also read, the original idea was that multiculturalism was primarily a tool to fight racism and foster societal harmony.

It was of course presented as an alternative to the Great American Melting Pot which was deemed too one-sided and narrow ("check all that old stuff and the door, forget about it and become American"), but it was more integrative than its generally acknowledged in today's Canada: "bring the stuff you brought with you and graft it onto the Canadian mosaic to enrich it".

It's not about existing outside of the mosaic in a parallel reality. Your contribution to the mosaic is valued and welcomed (perhaps more than in the U.S. melting pot), but there is still an expectation that a graft will take place.

It never was about implanting little Amritsars, Beiruts, Kyivs, Taipeis and Guadalajaras all over the country and having them replicate (as much as possible) the old country's society.

That is correct and it has been enormously successful. A model to the world, in fact. Lest anyone doubt it, perhaps you'd like this old geezer to share with you what social attitudes were like in the 1950s and 1960s (or from the
1930's, if my parents were accurate reflectons of their times). It was not an entirely pretty picture.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Acajack

More than some type of sinister plot, I think this actually speaks to different interpretations of what Canadian multiculturalism means.

The father of a good childhood friend of mine was actually one of the pen-holders of the original multiculturalism policies that were drawn up in the 1970s. Himself an immigrant and a visible minority, I don't think he had even been in Canada for a decade when he got the call to work on that project.

According to him, and according to what I have also read, the original idea was that multiculturalism was primarily a tool to fight racism and foster societal harmony.

It was of course presented as an alternative to the Great American Melting Pot which was deemed too one-sided and narrow ("check all that old stuff and the door, forget about it and become American"), but it was more integrative than its generally acknowledged in today's Canada: "bring the stuff you brought with you and graft it onto the Canadian mosaic to enrich it".

It's not about existing outside of the mosaic in a parallel reality. Your contribution to the mosaic is valued and welcomed (perhaps more than in the U.S. melting pot), but there is still an expectation that a graft will take place.

It never was about implanting little Amritsars, Beiruts, Kyivs, Taipeis and Guadalajaras all over the country and having them replicate (as much as possible) the old country's society.

This is a very abstract response and reads like a politician's speech rather than a practical blueprint for defining rules about what is and what is not acceptable ways to "graft" your culture into a "cultural mosaic".

Immigration will always be a two way street. If your community has a predominance of a certain heritage, take it as an invitation to experience a culture that likely has a large impact on the community. It is as much up to you to engage your community as it is up to your community to engage you. Your decision to ignore it or worse, a reaction to set up rules to dictate proper conduct is you withdrawing from your end of the bargain. Again, it's a two way street.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That is correct and it has been enormously successful. A model to the world, in fact. Lest anyone doubt it, perhaps you'd like this old geezer to share with you what social attitudes were like in the 1950s and 1960s (or from the
1930's, if my parents were accurate reflectons of their times). It was not an entirely pretty picture.

I agree, but what about the rest of my post? That goal (Objective 1) of the policy has largely been achieved, but will the various loose and even self-serving 21st century interpretations and justifications that are based on what multiculti is apparently supposed to be about, ultimately threaten the achivements of Objective 1?

[Doug]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Canada is a MULTICULTURAL nation but that does not change the fact that we are a BI-LINGUAL nation as well.

It is kind of sad that it has come to this, so many businesses refusing to use one of the official languages of the country but these are signs. Let's repeat that, these are signs........things used to inform, invite, warn, and have one thing in common, they are designed to get one's attention.

When something is designed to get one's attraction it can also be a distraction. Everyone in Canada has the right to know what something that is specifically designed to get their attention means..............in one of our official languages.

If someone wants to offer services only in another language, I couldn't care less. However, these are signs which are constructed purposefully to get one's attention and hence can be a distraction and hence Canadians have a right to know what it says.

If a restaurant wants to only provide menus in Cantonese, I don't care but any object that is in any way part of the public realm must be accessible for all in the public and that means either English or French.

Since when has the concept of an official language applied outside of government? Businesses know their customer base better than anyone else and market accordingly. If a person is offended by how a businesses presents itself, then either:
1) they aren't a target customer and have a low probability becoming a customer
2) the business has wrongly segmented its targeted customers, fails to attract them and goes out of business

Businesses do not brand much that is essential. Would it matter if the public at large does not know that a retail location sells Chinese herbal supplements?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Your decision to ignore it or worse, a reaction to set up rules to dictate proper conduct is you withdrawing from your end of the bargain.
.

I am not advocating anything. Just putting forward ideas and providing historical context.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I agree, but what about the rest of my post? That goal (Objective 1) of the policy has largely been achieved, but will the various loose and even self-serving 21st century interpretations and justifications that are based on what multiculti is apparently supposed to be about, ultimately threaten the achivements of Objective 1?

My faith in the system has yet to be shaken. We did have a case here in town this week where a Chinese guy's defence for assaulting his wife was that his conduct was not considered serious in his homeland (!). The judge effectively told him to take a hike and convicted him.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

This is a very abstract response and reads like a politician's speech rather than a practical blueprint for defining rules about what is and what is not acceptable ways to "graft" your culture into a "cultural mosaic".

.

It doesn't matter that you don't like the style: that was the basis for Canada's multicultural policy.

It was never about people leaving their homelands to live exactly as they had never left, but with a first world/new world level of material wealth and comforts.

We've actually had a few court cases in this country (including some for honour killings believe it or not) where some of the defence arguments have cited widely-held perceptions about Canadian multiculturalism: "my client was told that he could come to live in Canada and continue to live according to his beliefs, and raise his family that way", and so on.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

. If your community has a predominance of a certain heritage, take it as an invitation to experience a culture that likely has a large impact on the community. It is as much up to you to engage your community as it is up to your community to engage you. .

Do you give any consideration to how long that ethnic predominance goes back for?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Do you give any consideration to how long that ethnic predominance goes back for?

You mean like non-Germans in K-W going to Oktoberfest and eating schmecky food?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

My faith in the system has yet to be shaken.

I tend to agree with you. But debating issues is always good as long as things don't go overboard.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Do you give any consideration to how long that ethnic predominance goes back for?

No

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Doug

No

I knew you would say that, and I know why.

But seriously, so a bunch of people (people A) can move to established locality X and become the majority, and the primary integration onus is on the people (people B) who were already living there and had been there for quite some time? Assuming that most of the newcomers don't arrive in a place at the exact same time, wouldn't the primary integration onus be on the first trickle of members of people A who arrived in the locality?