Anglo privilege in the Canadian economy.

What's makes you believe that you must belong to a certain race to belong to a certain linguistic commmunity?

Race is race; language, language.

In fact, the siuation is so serious that some language economists have even flirted with the idea of a language tax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_tax

Though most of them don't support the idea wholeheartedly, and tend to favour alternative solutions, the simple fact that they've even mentioned the idea at all shows that they are seriously concerned with the worldwide class divide that we are witnessing today under English language hegemony.

 Yes, there is privilege that accrues to being an Anglophone. This is not what I am arguing against. Rather, it is your insistence on declaring the issue either one or the other (language or race).

 I'm not saying the issue is necessarly either one or the other, but rather that they are two separate things. Just to take three examples:

 1. A white anglohpone discriminating against a black anglophone purely on the basis of race. That would be an example of pure racism.

2. A white anglophone insulting a white francophone purely on the basis of his language. That would be linguicism. Or based on his ethnic identity, in which it would be ethnicism. Though admittedly the dividing line between ethnicism, nationalism and linguicism can sometimes be quite blurred because language is often associeted with ethnicity. But again, not alwasy.

3. A white anglophone who discriminates against a black francophone because he likes neither blacks nor francophones. This would be an esample of racism and linguicism simultaneously. Of course they can co-incide, but they are still two separate things.

Not everyone can partake of the privileges that accrue to Anglophones evenly (c.f., the perpetual foreigner identity imposed upon Anglophone Asians, the different cultural cache attached to different English literatures around the world, racial discrimination in employment in the ESL field, etc.).

Your perfectly right. This would be an example of the racialization of language (i.e. the assumption that a 'native speaker' of English is necessarily a white anglosaxon). They are still two separate things though, except that one has been applied to the other. It's like a rider sitting on a horse. They're moving together, but one is still the rider, the other the horse. In like manner, if we should apply racism to language, one is still racism, theother linguicism. It's just that then the one has piggybacked onto the other. This might seem pedantic, but I think it is important to make the distinction, because if we fail to do so, then we fail to understand either one when it's not associated with the other. But if we understand both separately, then it will be easy to understand them together, since then it's ust a matter of addition.

As such, no analysis of the politics of language can be performed with any rigor unless it also accounts for how these politics overlap and intersect with racism to produce widely uneven effects.

 I fully agree with this. Both racism and linguicism must be tackled, both separately and as they co-incide, as long as we don't assume that linguicism minus racism isn't linguicism any longer. With or without racism, linguicism is still linguicism. ut of course some people can suffer both simultaneously, granted.

Your desire to separate these issues is ahistorical, and can thus only end up with an incomplete picture of how these systems operate.

 Mabe it's my fault if I'd used word 'separate'. I agree that if your misunderstanding is due to my use of this word, then that's totally my fault. My apologies. So let's use the word 'distinguish' instead. I fully agree that we should also look at them as a unit, but only once they have been distinguished. This way, we are able to see the whole panorama of racism and linguicism, and not just where they intersect. And I'd taken it for granted that it would have been understood that if we should look at racism in its widest sense, then we woudl also see where it overlaps with linguicism. And if we look at linguicism in its widest sense, we'd see where it overlaps with lingucism. In this respect, a person focussing on racial issues and one focussing on language issues should be able to complement one another when looking at overlapping issues between the two. But this does not mean that either of these persons should ignore their respective issues where they don't overlap.

Maybe we do see eye to eye on this, but since I'm somewhat new to Rabble and have found racism to be too loosely defined, at least for my taste, I may have become excessively concerned with people ignoring other related issues not necessarily falling within the purview of race relations specifically. And if that's the case, then maybe it's just me who should loosen up. As I get more of a feel for this forum, I'll have a better idea of what to assume and not assume about others.

[/quote]

George Victor wrote:

LTJ: 

"I'm still betting that you're simply pulling our chain while you wank on your own, Machjo " 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just about convinced that you're right, LTJ.  But I'm afraid your sacraficial offering of two volumes will just come out the same end, undigested.

 So what boks have you read on the subject? Do you know another language at least? Have you ever lived in more than one language community? There's a reason I have so much interest in this subject. It's because I've lived it.

TEML is an interesting phenomenon too:

http://www.tesolislamia.org/articles/TEML.pdf

Though this site doesn't oppose the Christian Faith per se, it does point out how certain Missionaries have failed to apply Christian principles in their attempt to  exploit the power of the English language unfairly to their advantage.

Essentially, any talk of social justice while ignoring linguistic imperialism is nonsense. Considering that we are dealing with hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into English economies from the developing countries makes a joke of any talk of giving some token 'charity' money to these countries. They would benefit far more if we stopped taking their money in the first place and stopped giving them any than by us taking so much of their money and resources and then giving them a token amount back while making them feel as if they owe us.

Yest though some countries have in fact taken steps to counter linguistic imperialism, others, including Canada, engage in it to varying degrees. Here's another example of the link between linguistic imperialism and economic imperialism. Of course they're two different things, but on some occasions, they do overlap, and here is one example:

The Phillipines became officially independent in 1946, but the structure and attitudes imposed by the Americans have largely remained in force sinse. In the quest to legitimate local norms and languages, a few scholars have made tremendous efforts to decolonize and de-anglicize such university subjects as psychology. There has been debate about the appropriate medium of educaiton in schools, but there is extreme resistance to any switch away from English as the medium of instruction. In recent years, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund havebeen pressing for a renewed emphais on English in order to further 'the goals of national development'.

From the same book as above.

Now some nations have taken steps to promote more linguistic justice, yet Canada, including on the left, remains either silent or even favourable to linguistic imperialism. What active steps could Canadians take to promote more language justice?

I would thik that on a personal level, the least Anglos could do is learn a second bloody language. To not do so while the rest of the world is suffering under the burden of English is to add insult to injury. What are your thoughts on this? What could Canada do to promote more bilingualism, in any language, as a way to meet the rest of the world half-way rather than always expecting the rest of the world to reach out to them?

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus wrote:

"...wankkity wank wank."

 I dont want to know your fantacies.

Machjo, the term "immigrant" has become a racialized term.

 Generally true, but not always.

No, not all immigrants are people of colour, but when the term "immigrant" is used, and this has been true for the past several decades at least, it's now racialized.

 From my experience, yes, it's usually tru. but again, there are exceptions.

Also, white immigrants are treated *very* differently in Canada than immigrants of colour.

Again, generally true.

And, um, no offense sweetie, but whether you agree about the chicken-egg issue of which came first, the insitutional/systemic racism or the individual racism, they are all in place now, and again, there is no way that individual acts could have the effect that they do without the system backing them up.

I can agree with to some degree. I'm not aware of any systematically racist government policy still in place today, though there are still many government policies that promote systemic racism. Also, any systematically racist policy of the past is likely to have an effect for at least a generation after the policy is removed, and some systematically racist government policies have been removed only recently. And this doesn't change the faact that systemic racism, however illigal, is still practives among certain members of Canadian society. Looking at it this way, I wouldn't say that government policy backs racist acts, mut might create the environment allowing for them to manifest themselves.

Systematic racism is easy to identify and remove. It's explicitly racist in intent, and so its removal doesn't negatively affect any other system.

Systemic racism, though, is much harder to remove owing to the fact that it is either created under the guise of another issue, or is simply a result of an alternative root cause that has nothing to do with racism. Before we even consider removing a systemically racist policy, we first have to identify whether the official argument in favour of the policy is merely a front while systematic racism is the real hidden intent, or if the policy is sincerely well-meaning but has become systemically racist owing to its interaction with some other policy. If the policy falls into the first category, we must challenge it and remove it. If it falls into the second, then its removal could have other pernicious effects. In that case, we'd need to find out what other policy is causing this one to become systematically racist and remove that one. That other policy is likely to be more systematically racist anyway.

Unlike systematic racism, which is explicit and intends to discriminate against a particular race, systemic racism in itself doesn't intend to do so, but does so owing to a dinamic relating to an alternative

True. 

 Poverty has become racialized in the past few decades as well, in Canada. Does this mean there are no poor white people? No. But the poorer we go, the darker the people. This is the effect of the system.

Generally true. 

Let's look at police violence against communities of colour, mostly young Black men, but also adult Black men and Aboriginal men as well. Police regularly assault and kill these men with nary an outcry from the mainstream. Why? Because those group of men have been effectively isolated as "deserving", "criminal", etc. that such labels get applied to individuals regardless of how clear it was that the cops operate like this as a matter of course (no "bad apples"), business as usual.

 I agree.

The problem I have with all your extracting and hypothetical examples, Machjo, is that they are born only from your experiences or your "ideas". When one has privilege, as you and I do, one has a very limited understanding of how lives are lived by people who are criminalized *just for being who they are* (ie, poor, of colour, immigrant).  

Some of my examples that I've given are from real experiences, some from my own mind. But I've always clarified which they were in my posts. I do believe however that we need a structure to analyse these issues in Rabble as opposed to blind spewing out of the label 'racist' to everyone passing by. I'm not saying you've done so. In fact, you seem to have been quite reasonable so far by acknowledging that not all cases of inustice always relate to race, as has happenned with some rabblers in previous threads. So my apologies if I'd come across as too defensive earlier. I just wanted to make sure this thread not go down the same path as previous ones with everyone labelling everyone else 'racist' like it was a sport.

Racism is not just about attitudes and behaviours. That's the individual level only. In Canada racist, oppressive and white supremacist systems interlock to keep certain groups of people marginalized, while simultaneously blaming individuals for their social location. 

I can agree with that.

Generally speaking, Ive just found native-English-Canadians to be quite negligent in the field of language equality beyond lip service to official bilingualism, yet without having really given it much if any thought, merely parroting what they've always heard in school. When we analyse it more closely, it is in fact an imperialistic language policy.

The Indian Act 

You're absolutely right. I guess I was typing too late last night. Sorry. 

Machjo wrote:

And this doesn't change the faact that systemic racism, however illigal, 

You're right, it is legal. I don't know why I typed that.?

Machjo wrote:

Systemic racism, though, is much harder to remove owing to the fact that it is either created under the guise of another issue, or is simply a result of an alternative root cause that has nothing to do with racism.

You're wrong.

Yes, it was late at night for me when I'd typed that. As for the first part, I'll still tand by the fact that sometimes though the intent of a policy is systematic racism, that intent is officially denied and some other excuse is given. No, sorry, I am wrong, that wouldn't be systemic racism, but ust systematic racism under a guise. So you're still right there.

And on the second part, I don't know why I typed that. Of course if a systemically racist policy has become systemic only owing to some other policy, that other policy is necessarily unjust in some way, possibly racist, but certainly unjust. To take an example:

A well-meaning and non-racist government might insist that all persons entering Canada must know the language, expressing genuine concern for th eability of these persons to participate fully in Canadian life. However, owing to past linguistic racism in other countries yesterday and today, the result is that it unintentionally favours persons from certain countries. That wold not bethe fault of the policy above, though, but of other policies. Once the other policies are rectified, that systemic racism ofthe policy above would disappear too. I'll start a separate thread on that.

If you'd like some recommended reading on this let me know. Scholars have spent years examining the roots of Canadian systemic racism, formed for the explicit purpose of having a second-tier level of citizens (the third tier being First Nations people). Head tax, Chinese workers building the railroads, Japanese internment camps, the entire reservation system (see "Indian Act" above). And that's just off the top of my head. Plus I'm tired. I can give you more examples tomorrow if you like, and if I'm still in a place to continue this conversation.

Yes, please let me know.

And LTJ and RP, (you know I loves ya both), I know Machjo is annoying you, but in this thread he's not been over the line. Don't contribute to the thread if it's bugging you so much. 

 Thanks.

Machjo wrote:

 A well-meaning and non-racist government might insist that all persons entering Canada must know the language, expressing genuine concern for th eability of these persons to participate fully in Canadian life. However, owing to past linguistic racism in other countries yesterday and today, the result is that it unintentionally favours persons from certain countries.

Again, there's nothing unintentional about it. Ever. And there are no well-meaning and non-racist governments, Canada included.

I have no idea what you mean by "participate fully in Canadian life" and why newcomers are singled out by you, all the time, in reference to what language(s) they speak. This constant harping of yours, by the way, when the category "immigrants" is racialized, is why you've been challenged on racism.

 Then to take another example:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article4116523.ece

Now what is the solution to this? Some ave proposed that we raise English standards. That would of course enrench linguistic imperialism still further, but at least ensure safety.

Alternatively, we could just let everyone use his own language. That would guarantee equality between all nations, but we'd have airplanes crashinginto each other on a daily basis.

So how would I approach this? I would propose the adoption, creation, or revision of a universal auxiliary language desinged to be easy for all to learn. Since it would be no one's mother-tongue, it would thus be compatible with justice. And since it's a common language, it would ensure safety.

Now what if I face opposition in this adopting such a rational solution? Then my only option, for the sake of safety, is to raise English standards even if it is discriminatory. In this case, I would be promoting a potentially systemically racist policy, but through no fault of my own. Or did I miss somthing in this? If so, and I might very well have, please point it out.

Now prallelling this to Canada's language policies. For the safety of persons entering Canada, we need to ensure that they know a common language. What if they have to call 911? What about finding a job, or even applying for government assistance. If they don't have a common language, there is nothing we can do. Now in the interest of justice, I would propose that Canada approach the UN to promote a common universal auxiliary language that all would have to learn on an equal footing. Should people oppose that, though, then I have no choice but to require them to learn the local language, whatever that language might be. Sure this means that I'd be promoting a potentialy systemically racist language policy. But if faced with opposition to reform the root problem in the first place, then I have no choice but to defend such a policy to protect the locals in case they need to communicate with essential or emergency services, as well as to have equal access to the country's economic resources.

Again, if I'm missing something here, please point it out.