I agree that the purpose of the discriminatory french laws is to protect the usage of the French language in Quebec. I also agree that its quite likely that French could disappear (or its usage severely curtailed) without them.
However, the big question that needs to be asked is:
So what?
Sociologists point out that having a different language helps preserve the culture of that linguistic group, especially where the group is a minority. The loss of language and culture go hand in hand, until finally the minority group is culturally assimilated.
Hey, I agree that language is an important part of cultural identity and preserving a language helps preserve a culture. But you're still left with the question:
So what?
So what's important is up to you. If your culture is important to you, for whatever reason -- shared history, shared responsibility, shared customs, ethics, symbols, language, music, art, love, pride, native attachment, self-definition, collective identity, regional familiarity, sense of who you are, where you're from, where you've been, where you're going, etc., etc., etc. -- you try to preserve it. If, however, you feel all cultures are interchangeable, one culture is as good as another, you don't.
A culture isn't "living" either. Cultures change, some merge with others, others disappear.
A culture is lived in. The common intellectual space that is inhabited. Its fate can depend on the choices of its inhabitants.
Yes, it is a good idea to preserve elements of culture for historical purposes. But I feel that its wrong to trample on people's rights in order to preserve a culture.
"Culture" as a museum exhibit. Can happen easy enough.
"Rights" are always trade-offs, individual vs collective good, and vary across societies. In Quebec, the collective right to preserve the culture by protecting the language takes precedence over individual rights to actions which are judged to threaten language and culture.
In English Canada, the collective right to preserve the culture is also asserted (by Canadian Content laws). For example, a radio station that wanted to play all-American music would not be allowed to. They are required by law to give at least thirty-five per cent of their air time over to Canadian artists. This gives Canadian artists more exposure and a better chance for a career than they would have otherwise, particularly artists whose style is endemic to and popular primarily in Canada. It enhances our collective culture and identity, at the expense of the individual radio station manager's right to play whatever s/he wants to.
In any society, rights strike a consensus balance between the individual and group. French and English Canada are no exception.
...it can also easily be seen as part of our common heritage, another strategy in our common struggle to preserve our heritage, keep Canadian cultures distinctive, to ensure that simple demographics won't warp, swamp or silence our less numerous, more murmurous, and always complex voice, eh?
(
n'est-ce pas?)
Just wondering... is human society really better off being fractured into hundreds if not thousands of cultures? Yeah, its nice to be "unique", but its also nice to converse with other people in the world, to understand their point of view without language or culture barriers getting in the way.
Fracturing "into hundreds if not thousands of cultures"? What country is this? Canada is officially built on two founding linguistic groups (unfair to Natives but they didn't have much say at the time), which reflects our historical reality, and federal and provincial laws combine to privilege and preserve the cultures of those two groups. I'm not sure where the fracturing into hundreds and thousands comes in. There are good things about homogeneity, and good things about diversity. A good balance, which is what Canada strives for and perhaps even occasionally achieves, is probably best. For nothing but diversity is the Tower of Babel; nothing but homogeneity, Euro-Disneyland. Thankfully, Canada is far from both, and has no aspirations to become either.
By all means, keep speaking french. Drink your Labatts 50. Eat your poutine. Cheer for the Canadiens. You certainly have the right to do so.
That was a pretty disappointing nosedive in the conversation there, hosehead.
Actually, I've got a rather extensive collection of movies... nearing 400 at this point. Granted a lot of them are American-style blockbusters, but I also make it a point to purchase Canadian movies. Also have a lot of Canadian CDs in my music collection.
And guess what? I have those Canadian movies/CDs because they bring me enjoyment, not because the government has stepped in and said "You must have X number of Canadian movies in your collection in order to protect Canadian culture".
The irony being that some might not have been made if the government didn't mandate Canadian Content.
