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

[lio45]

Originally Posted by geotag277

We will just have to agree to disagree. Personally I will never see eye to eye with someone who starts from the position that embracing a culture and language is somehow a cultural net negative that subtracts something from all of us.

Embracing a language can indeed end up to cause a cultural net loss.

For example, Brittany and Provence embracing French have led to the near extinction of their own native languages, and a dilution/mainstream-French-ification of their own cultures ensued.

Just an example, but I am sure there are many others out there.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

One thing is sure though, communities, whether tribal, racial, or cultural, have always, throughout human history, had fully or nearly fully functional communication means connecting the individuals within it.

In other words, historically, communities where half the people are like GlassCity and the other half are writing their signs in Mandarin only... are not really communities, in the historical sense. i.e. they're lacking a very core element, mutual intelligibility of the people constituing it.

"Communities featuring linguistic similarity" is indeed an ancient force.

1. That's a very self-serving definition of community.

2. In most empires, a high percentage of the population would be unable to communicate with one another.

3. In India, there are hundreds of millions who cannot communicate with one another. Hindi is not popular in some states, and access to quality English education is limited. There is nevertheless an imagined 'India' community. What that community means to some is different than what it means to others.

4. The whole point of civic states is that civic states don't define themselves on the basis of speaking the same language, or looking the same racially, or praying to the same God. They define themselves by the values that constitute the state. It's a different type of community.

5. People find a way to communicate with one another when it is necessary. Greater multilingualism may emerge.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

1. That's a very self-serving definition of community.

2. In most empires, a high percentage of the population would be unable to communicate with one another.

3. In India, there are hundreds of millions who cannot communicate with one another. Hindi is not popular in some states, and access to quality English education is limited. There is nevertheless an imagined 'India' community. What that community means to some is different than what it means to others.

4. The whole point of civic states is that civic states don't define themselves on the basis of speaking the same language, or looking the same racially, or praying to the same God. They define themselves by the values that constitute the state. It's a different type of community.

5. People find a way to communicate with one another when it is necessary. Greater multilingualism may emerge.

India is also notoriously dysfunctional.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

Embracing a language can indeed end up to cause a cultural net loss.

For example, Brittany and Provence embracing French have led to the near extinction of their own native languages, and a dilution/mainstream-French-ification of their own cultures ensued.

Just an example, but I am sure there are many others out there.

I don't think English is going to go that route any time soon, and that has nothing to do with the future of Anglo Canada.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I also question the use of the term "settled" in a state that is the product of recent colonization and continual mass migration.

So do you arbitrarily draw that line somewhere between ~500 years and ~1,500 years, or you consider Anglo-Saxon Britain to be "the product of recent colonization" of a land that was already inhabited by Celtic natives?

I mean, the ancestors of that South Asian turban-wearing Londoner only arrived (say, in the Victorian period...?) slightly more than a millenium after the main bunch of John Bull's ancestors. In the grand scheme of things it's not much time. Aren't they all immigrants, except the Welsh/Cornish/Scots, by the definition you're insisting on applying to Canada?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

1. That's a very self-serving definition of community.

2. In most empires, a high percentage of the population would be unable to communicate with one another.

3. In India, there are hundreds of millions who cannot communicate with one another. Hindi is not popular in some states, and access to quality English education is limited. There is nevertheless an imagined 'India' community. What that community means to some is different than what it means to others.

4. The whole point of civic states is that civic states don't define themselves on the basis of speaking the same language, or looking the same racially, or praying to the same God. They define themselves by the values that constitute the state. It's a different type of community.

5. People find a way to communicate with one another when it is necessary. Greater multilingualism may emerge.

If you consider the entirety of India to be one single community, or the British or Spanish Empires at their apogees to be single, unique communities, then we sure don't have the same definition of that word.

And just because empires have managed to exist for some time with internal communication issues doesn't mean that communication isn't something that's desirable...

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

India is also notoriously dysfunctional.

I don't think it is because of its diversity or a weakened sense of community. That is not to suggest that there is not violence and mistrust between different ethnolinguistic communities, but when compared to other poor postcolonial states and the history of the neighborhood they're in, India should be commended for how it has managed to accommodate different ethnolinguisitc groups.

In fact, I think India's diversity has saved it from balkanizing and ending in civil wars. Consider Pakistan, where the Punjabi population is 50%+. There has always been huge inter-ethnic violence. There was a genocide in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) committed by West Pakistan (now Pakistan). The Baloch are waging a separatist campaign. The Pashtun want to reunite with the Afghan Pashtun population.

Consider Sri Lanka; during colonization, the minority Tamil population was given privileged treatment. When it ended, the democratic state gave power to the majority Sinhalese population, who subjected the minority population to violence, and resulted in a Civil War.

In India, the largest ethnolinguistic community (native Hindi speakers) only constitute 40% of the population, and that is being generous with respect to which dialects actually constitute 'Hindi' (i.e., is mutually intelligible). They also live in the heartland, which aside from Delhi (which is on the fringes, anyway), is by far the poorest region in India with no access to the coast. The fear that this plurality ethnicity will unfairly wield power is diminished by federalism, the prosperity in the hinterlands, and a rather accommodating language policy.

India's notorious dysfunction is more attributable to widespread corruption and poverty. But things are getting better; they are heading in the right direction in terms of growing their economy.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

If you consider the entirety of India to be one single community, or the British or Spanish Empires at their apogees to be single, unique communities, then we sure don't have the same definition of that word.

And just because empires have managed to exist for some time with internal communication issues doesn't mean that communication isn't something that's desirable...

Communities are layered; individuals belong to several communities.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I don't think it is because of its diversity or a weakened sense of community. That is not to suggest that there is not violence and mistrust between different ethnolinguistic communities, but when compared to other poor postcolonial states and the history of the neighborhood they're in, India should be commended for how it has managed to accommodate different ethnolinguisitc groups.

In fact, I think India's diversity has saved it from balkanizing and ending in civil wars. Consider Pakistan, where the Punjabi population is 50%+. There has always been huge inter-ethnic violence. There was a genocide in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) committed by West Pakistan (now Pakistan). The Baloch are waging a separatist campaign. The Pashtun want to reunite with the Afghan Pashtun population.

Consider Sri Lanka; during colonization, the minority Tamil population was given privileged treatment. When it ended, the democratic state gave power to the majority Sinhalese population, who subjected the minority population to violence, and resulted in a Civil War.

In India, the largest ethnolinguistic community (native Hindi speakers) only constitute 40% of the population, and that is being generous with respect to which dialects actually constitute 'Hindi' (i.e., is mutually intelligible). They also live in the heartland, which aside from Delhi (which is on the fringes, anyway), is by far the poorest region in India with no access to the coast. The fear that this plurality ethnicity will unfairly wield power is diminished by federalism, the prosperity in the hinterlands, and a rather accommodating language policy.

India's notorious dysfunction is more attributable to widespread corruption and poverty. But things are getting better; they are heading in the right direction in terms of growing their economy.

I would still argue, and here I think India is actually a very good example of this, that diversity works better when you have many groups of cultures and ethnicities, rather than a few dominant groups as is the case in most parts of Vancouver (i.e. White, Chinese, East Indian). No single group in India is overly dominant, and as you've said, that has helped balance out power and ease tensions.

I'd much rather see immigrants coming to Vancouver from many many different countries, as is closer to the case in Toronto. If that were the case I don't think that the whole Chinese language sign thing would have even come into public discussion in the first place. I don't think this whole conflict has all that much to do specifically with the Chinese in Richmond, but rather that they are now the largest group in the city by a fairly large margin.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

It's not the same, though.

- Saskatchewan had a large influx of migrants of different ethnolinguistic communities, but then at a certain point the rate of migration to Saskatchewan really slowed down, and remained that way for a while. This break in immigration meant that there was time for the existing communities to accommodate and reciprocally acculturate until the differences gradually faded. The current influx has no natural reason to ending; sure, the government could enact legislation. But if left intact, the drivers of immigration from South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia will continue to exist for a very long time. This will be a long-sustaining influx of immigrants, with a few countries highly over-represented.

- Saskatchewan immigrants of that time often did not have time to visit their homeland frequently, unlike the current influx. Given technological advances that have made flying by air more affordable, plenty of recent immigrants go back to their homeland frequently.

- Saskatchewan immigrants of that time often did not have the telecommunications technology we have today, such as cell phones and Skype.

- Saskatchewan immigrants of that time did not have access to satellite TVs, which give the recent flux the opportunity to maintain stronger cultural linkages with their homeland.

- Saskatchewan settlement patterns were different from modern settlement patterns. Saskatchewan remained somewhat rural. This may make it more difficult to have the critical mass in a high enough concentration to enable immigrants to make the reciprocal acculturation process less asymmetrical.

- While Saskatchewan immigrants were ethnolinguistically diverse, they also shared quite a lot in common; faith in Christianity, same race, and, to some extent, a shared European history. Such features may account for why some immigrant communities take longer to assimilate than others.

Except for certain ones, which I will address in another post, I am aware of these factors and have given them some thought as they are important and in many cases new.

I would however say that overall the new interconnected world we are living in will only delay the integration/assimilation process. It will not block it.

Just because young people have more access to culture and even direct human contacts with the old country does not mean they will be interested in them. Or at least, interested them in more than a superficial way like buying a cap and cheering for that team in the World Cup.

Consider that there is a high level of cultural material available in French in Canada, the language is recognized as official and is on all consumer products that you have in your house, schooling in French first is available to francophones all across the country, and there still is a huge chunk of young francophones outside Quebec and New Brunswick that basically write off that culture and language with every passing generation.

So "access" is far from the only factor. Peer and societal pressures play a big role. And of course the the lack of comprehensive formal schooling in immigrant languages.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

- Saskatchewan had a large influx of migrants of different ethnolinguistic communities, but then at a certain point the rate of migration to Saskatchewan really slowed down, and remained that way for a while. This break in immigration meant that there was time for the existing communities to accommodate and reciprocally acculturate until the differences gradually faded. The current influx has no natural reason to ending; sure, the government could enact legislation. But if left intact, the drivers of immigration from South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia will continue to exist for a very long time. This will be a long-sustaining influx of immigrants, with a few countries highly over-represented.

.

I don't know why one would assume that the current rate of immigration from India and China will remain at current levels for a very long time. It's basically a total unknown and subject to a whole series of factors.

In any event, the children who are the same age as my kids who are the grandchildren of people who immigrated to Canada in the 1960s and 1970s, overwhelmingly do not speak the language of their grandparents. In many cases there has been exogamy (married to someone of another origin) in their parents' generation (my generation) and while my contemporaries often speak the language (sometimes quite shakily) their kids are always native English or French speakers.

What this means is that even if immigration is sustained from, say, China or India, it's not really building on the previous generations, but rather replacing them. I guess this does sustain the communities to some degree, but it does not allow them to go to the next societal level, and in the absence of new blood they will assimilate as well, eventually.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

- Saskatchewan settlement patterns were different from modern settlement patterns. Saskatchewan remained somewhat rural. This may make it more difficult to have the critical mass in a high enough concentration to enable immigrants to make the reciprocal acculturation process less asymmetrical.

.

I'd say the settlement patterns in Saskatchewan actually lent themselves to cultures lasting longer than the current urban settlement patterns. You had Ukrainian towns, German towns, Swedish towns, etc. For quite some time these settlements were pretty much homogenous. The schoolteachers and any local government official as well, the milkman, the cops, etc. were all from the same ethnic community. And so it was easy for most of life to go on in their language and according to their cultural norms.

It's much more difficult to maintain that in a large, diverse metro like Vancouver or Toronto. The mailmen, bus drivers, schoolteachers, Coca-Cola delivery guys, police officers, building inspectors, hydro linemen, etc. aren't all going to be Indo-Canadians even in Brampton or Chinese-Canadian in Richmond.

[Acajack]

Just wondering...

For saffronleaf and GlassCity and any others who learned a language other than English (or French) from your parents, how is your proficiency?

Would you be able to follow university-level courses in that language? Or work in an office setting in that language?

Answer as honestly as possible please!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

There is a lot of interesting literature on human self-domestication and neotenization; it is a process that changes humans physically and physiologically, with attendant changes in human behavior.

It is possible that prosperity can ameliorate aggressiveness, but even independently of that, humans have changed physically and physiologically over the years in a manner that generally leads to greater cooperativeness and less aggression.

I still think this diminishing aggressiveness in the human psyche (which is demonstrable I agree) is intricately related to the fact that what you (and your offspring) need to survive is more easily obtainable than ever before.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

4. The whole point of civic states is that civic states don't define themselves on the basis of speaking the same language, or looking the same racially, or praying to the same God. They define themselves by the values that constitute the state. It's a different type of community.

The country currently known as Canada is, in fact, a good example of this type of ''community''. If you want to call it that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

1. That's a very self-serving definition of community.

.

Not really. Linguistic cohesion is something that almost all human societies or sub-societies have, have tried to implement or have aspired to.

I do know what you are getting at and not every single thing needs to be viewed by you and others here through the prism of people defending Quebec's ''way of doing things''. Just sayin'...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not really. Linguistic cohesion is something that almost all human societies or sub-societies have, have tried to implement or have aspired to.

Absolutely... otherwise, it's two or more communities by most definitions of it. Of course there's one layer that includes everybody too, but then, there's also a layer of "community" that includes the entirety of humanity who are currently all sharing this planet... I mean, we're all very similar as humans... but that's a pretty useless definition of community then...

I do know what you are getting at and not every single thing needs to be viewed by you and others here through the prism of people defending Quebec's ''way of doing things''. Just sayin'...

FWIW, I haven't been thinking of Quebec at all in most of my arguments in this thread, I've been mostly limiting myself to looking at the situation in Richmond as an outsider / armchair quarterback.

Just to be clear, I don't mind what they end up doing over there at all. It's their own issue, they decide how to deal with it. Couldn't care less.

Personally, I'm in favor big time of the -- basic, IMO -- right of businesses to freely target whoever they want even if in practice it ends up discriminating/excluding potential customers. So I'm all for the freedom of people to decide to run women-only gyms, gay-only clubs, Jews-only tea salons, whites-only taverns, Chinese-speakers-only massage parlors, etc.

(I also fully support the right of propane sellers to arbitrarily refuse to sell you propane Someone on this forum will get what I'm referring to.)

But, thing is, in many societies, it doesn't actually work that way... some people seem to disagree with me on that one, so sometimes collective choices are made to legally reduce the freedom of business operators to make their own clientele-limiting choices. Currently, one more level of this is being considered in Richmond, and I can see decent arguments for it, so I'm not surprised that it has some support over there. Some people seem to prefer to give up a bit of individual shopowner freedom in exchange for more forced integration and interaction.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Just wondering...

For saffronleaf and GlassCity and any others who learned a language other than English (or French) from your parents, how is your proficiency?

Would you be able to follow university-level courses in that language? Or work in an office setting in that language?

Answer as honestly as possible please!

I am completely fluent in Russian, much more so than French. A little less comfortable than English in that I say things with weird grammar sometimes, but I understand it fully and people don't have any trouble understanding me. I don't have an accent, and I can read and write, albeit with some funky spelling mistakes occasionally. I think I would probably be getting the same grades in all my classes right now if they were in Russian, and working in an office would be fine as well. What I'm trying to say is that if I speak English at a 10, Russian would probably be a 9.

Russian was my first language, and when we came to Canada my parents wanted to make sure we stayed fluent, as most kids forget it. So to this day, only Russian is allowed when talking to them or my brother (though him and I speak English to each other when they're not around ) From like ages 5-10, we both had to read an hour of Russian a day.

I want to mention though that we're an exception. All my parent's friends here are Russian, and most of their kids don't speak it very well at all.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I am completely fluent in Russian, much more so than French. A little less comfortable than English in that I say things with weird grammar sometimes, but I understand it fully and people don't have any trouble understanding me. I don't have an accent, and I can read and write, albeit with some funky spelling mistakes occasionally. I think I would probably be getting the same grades in all my classes right now if they were in Russian, and working in an office would be fine as well. What I'm trying to say is that if I speak English at a 10, Russian would probably be a 9.

Russian was my first language, and when we came to Canada my parents wanted to make sure we stayed fluent, as most kids forget it. So to this day, only Russian is allowed when talking to them or my brother (though him and I speak English to each other when they're not around ) From like ages 5-10, we both had to read an hour of Russian a day.

I want to mention though that we're an exception. All my parent's friends here are Russian, and most of their kids don't speak it very well at all.

Congratulations to your parents!

I'll make sure my kids also speak French at least... I'm sure they'd later blame me if they didn't!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Congratulations to your parents!

I'll make sure my kids also speak French at least... I'm sure they'd later blame me if they didn't!

Assuming they don't grow up in a place where they will learn it by osmosis like Quebec!

BTW, a lot of people say this (I will teach my kids *my* language even if I live outside of its "home zone"), but judging from what I can tell it is much easier said than done.

For starters, I'd say one is 10 times more likely to be successful if both parents are native speakers of the language that is to be taught.