Reclaiming Language

In the March issue of The Walrus, there is an extended article on the need for, and the

complexities of, teaching indigenous children their nation's language. The task is made

complicated in part because many of Canada's first languages are structured differently than are

the languages of Europe and therefore an entirely different pedagogical approach is required.   

The reasons why indigenous children need to be taught their grandparent's first language within a

formal school system as opposed to being taught by their parents and other adults in the

community are long standing and well known. There is no doubt that the Canadian government's

policy, enacted by direct and indirect agents was to assimilate the indigenous peoples of Canada

into what was then perceived to be the mainstream of Canadian society. Residential schools were

designed to be the primary tool of cultural assimilation/genocide. If only the government

had waited a hundred years, they would not have needed to do anything at all thereby saving not

only money that could have been better spent but more importantly not causing long term

psychological damage to countless communities.

Languages die. That is a fact. No one speaks Sumerian or Sanskrit anymore. Only academics and

priests use Latin, or the language of Bede or Chaucer.  Languages die out because a more

predominant culture or language supersedes it. I can remember growing up in Quebec and

knowing that some French speaking parents wanted to send their children to the English school

system not only because it was a better education but also because it would prepare their children

to compete in an English  speaking world. The fact that French in Quebec is the dominant

language has as much to do with the language protection laws enacted in the last two or three

decades of the 1900s as it does on its natural resurgence.  The increased numbers of speakers of

Gaelic or Welsh in Great Britain are a point of pride for those individuals but do not reflect

the mainstream. Those languages are not used outside relatively small circles. They frequently

appear to be an affection as opposed to a useful addition to the human dialogue. While no point

was made as to the irony of it, the above article from The Walrus in discussing which Indigenous

languages are most used in Canada, briefly mentioned that "major dialects tend to crush minor

ones". Not because the speakers of Cree are mean or colonialist but because it makes life easier

to communicate when we all speak a common language.  It makes more sense to communicate in

the language of the majority.

There is no doubt that the early disappearance/eradication of Indigenous languages in Canada is

a direct result of the interference of the Canadian government in the natural lives of whole

communities. The harsh, abusive techniques used to punish children who spoke their first

language within the Residential School system as operated by the various churches and the

Canadian government were profoundly inappropriate and more importantly - damaged the

psyche of an entire population. But many of those languages would have evolved and some if not

most would have died a natural death.

I accept that it is critically important that Indigenous communities become strong through and

because of their culture. I think that, because of the impact of how the Canadian government

(and all of those who voted for them in the 149 years since confederation), the best, perhaps the

only way that that can occur is for the children and grandchildren of those who were punished

for speaking their language get to learn it and to celebrate it. It saddens me that our mutual

languages did not evolve together. We could have had a language that instead of a few place

names basterdized into English as the only acknowledgement of there being a culture here before

the Europeans arrived, would have been rich in the best of both languages.

And that affects us all.

A Semi Humorous Rant About Showers And Conserving Water

I like a good shower. That means that (1) the shower nozzle is above my head  so that I do not have to bend down to get my hair wet. I am never sure why some plumbers/bathroom designers think that all shower users are only five foot five and therefore the shower heads are installed so low that I could have a shower and never get my hair wet. Fortunately probably two thirds of the showers that I use are marginally high enough.

My second need for it to be a good shower is that the water coming out of the nozzle, does so with some force. The most popular shower heads are those that sprinkle down water like a gentle rain shower. That does not work for me. I want a torrent of water blasting away at me. If the top layer of my epidermis is not scoured off by the water ...it never feels like a real shower. In Canada, it is becoming an impossibility to have a truly satisfying shower. Unless one is fortunate enough to have a shower in a house where the owners have carefully protected  their 20 year old shower head or you are travelling and get to stay in a road side motel that has not upgraded their decor in the past 20 years (there are, perhaps not surprisingly, a rather large number of these motels scatted across the Canadian landscape) one is out of luck. Those nozzles are illegal. You can't buy them in Canada. Why? Because some bleeding heart and misguided fool (contrary to what neo-liberals believe - those two descriptors are not always connected) decided that we needed to conserve water. It was further agreed by all that the best way to conserve water would be to reduce the use of water by folks taking a shower.

No one seems to have pointed out that those of us who take showers already are conserving water as compared to those who consume far more water by having a bath. But there are some people who consume far more water than I do and a daily basis. Their access to that water is unrestricted. In fact they are encouraged to consume excess water by a wide range of public health practitioners. I am, of course, referring to all of those people who follow the Canada Food Guide and eat their daily serving of meat and vegetables.

The Beef Cattle Research Council suggests that it takes anywhere from 3700 litres to 20,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of beef. I suspect the amounts are so varied depending upon how that cow is raised and what feed it is given. In another article from the same organization it suggest that it takes eight gallons of water for every pound of beef. According to a Stats Canada report from 2001 (I could not find more current data but I cannot imagine that the amount of water has gone down in the past 14 years) Canadian farmers used 4,424,600 thousand cubic meters of water to irrigate their crops (1 cubic metre= 220 imperial gallons or 1000 litres). That is a lot of water.  Over 85% of the water used in Canadian agriculture is used for irrigation. 50% of that water is used to irrigate crops used solely for the production of meat. Stop eating meat and we will save a whole lot of water.

While we are saving water, why don't we stop eating lettuce. I can't find the amount of water used to grow lettuce in Canada but whatever the amount  - it is wasted. I like lettuce but given its very low nutritional value - I would rather have a decent shower instead.

And finally the almond. California (that place that has been experiencing drought for the past four or so years) produces approximately 80% of all of the almonds eaten in North America. According to the publication Mother Jones, each almond takes one gallon (American) to grow (walnuts take five gallons). Just under 3.5 billion cubic metres are used to irrigate almonds in California. I like almonds..... I like almonds a lot but I would rather do without them. If I ate 8 less almonds a week - I could have at least one shower a week with decent pressure.

 I appreciate the concern about water usage. I understand that we all need to do our part. But I do wish we would stop these impulses to solve the problem in the easiest way possible. I wish that we could accept that if we are going to deal with some of these problems, we are going to need to understand the whole problem. Making sure that there is enough water for all means that we are going to have to make some fundamental life choices. For many that means that they are going have to give up some things. I am just not too sure why I have to give up having a decent shower while those who eat meat, lettuce and almonds get a free ride.

Ghomeshi Trial - Conclusion

 The formal portion of  Jian Ghomeshi's trial is over. That is, the trial in front of a judge, in full view of the public is finished. The only remaining bit of work to be done is for the judge to decide whether or not the evidence clearly proves his guilt or was insufficient to do so. If it had been a trial by jury - the decision would have been reasonably quick. No jury would take a month to decide. But the judge, presumably because he has other trials to preside over, apparently needs that much time.

There were, of course, two trials occurring simultaneously. One was to determine Ghomeshi's guilt or innocence, the other to determine if the women who brought forward the information that lead to the charges were telling the truth or not. On the surface, the trial started from the same perspective regardless of the fact that those perspectives are diametrically opposite. It, by law, was assumed that (1) Ghomeshi was telling the truth and was therefore innocent, and that (2)  the women were telling the truth and he was guilty. In the best of all worlds, the judge's ruling will clearly state who was honest and who was not. But it is not that simple.

Rightly or wrongly Ghomeshi was, by the public at large, judged to be guilty almost from the first published hints of alleged wrong doing. While there may of been a myriad of reasons for doing so, his bosses at CBC wasted little time firing him when the news of his alleged sexual assault became known. His guilt was so wide accepted that he has not worked since. It strikes me that it is unlikely, regardless of the judge's ruling,  that he will ever in the foreseeable future have a job as prestigious as his previous one . One wonders if he will be employable anywhere else other than on some AM talk late afternoon show.

The women on the other hand, were assumed to be telling the truth. The current thinking on such allegations is that it is so painful for women to talk about sexual assault, that they would only do so if there was some truth behind their statements. Regardless of the judge's findings, those women will always be believed by the vast majority of feminists, if not a significant proportion of the general public.  While both their personal and professional status may not have been enhanced by their disclosures, they certainly have not been diminished. But at the very least they have exposed themselves to public scrutiny and the resultant shame. The emotional/psychological damage may be long standing.

The presumption of innocence, while it may be a cornerstone of our criminal legal system, is sometimes quite simply garbage. They are some people who are clearly guilty and lying when they say they are innocent. Similarly there have been enough cases in the past 18 months (see for example Rolling Stone withdrawal of sexual assault story) to question as to whether or not people are always telling the truth when alleging sexual assault. Our present legal system allows the defence to attack the credibility of a witness; to look for and to pick away at inconsistencies. And rightly so. But we are wrong in assuming that if a witness is inconsistent or if they tell facts out of order, or even forget some, that they are lying.  Our presumptions of guilt or innocence; of truth or lies are based on gut feelings. Our legal system is based on the assumption that we (the judge or the jury) can always  tell who is honest.

I, of course, have no way of knowing as to whether or not Ghomeshi is guilty of the offences. My gut says that the women are telling the truth and that some sort of assault did occur. But I freely acknowledge that that perspective has been shaped by my liberal education and my general inclination to be on the side of the oppressed and the abused.  

For the life of me - I cannot see any real winners in the process

Free Health Care?

Occasionally in some of the classes that I taught we discussed the social determinants of health (I never called it that - it would have driven too many of them away). I started off my conversation by asking each of  the classes if health care was free for individuals in Canada. All students thought the answer was yes. Occasionally a few students would add to the conversation by reminding me that free health care was what made us different to those to the south of us.  I would then ask "how long have Canadians had free health care". While the answers to this question were much slower in coming than for the first question, the consensus was "forever" or at least nearly that long.

The students were surprised to find out that universal health care in Canada is, relatively speaking, a fairly new thing. I suspect some if not most were surprised and perhaps disbelieving when I informed them that my mother, while my birth in a hospital had not cost my parents money, visiting the doctor had. Perhaps surprised is the wrong word. My students by that point in the school year had decided that not only was I of a different generation to them, I had in all likelihood been born on an entirely different planet.  Most of them flat out thought I was wrong when I said that some Canadians had to pay a monthly premium to get "free" health care.

In Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, health insurance premiums are funded in one of three ways. If your income is below a certain level - the province pays, if you are employed by a company,  the company pays, and if you are self-employed or retired but make above a certain amount - you pay directly. In B.C the monthly premiums are $75.00 or $900.00 a year.

I have just filled out the forms to get BC coverage. Because the government use Revenue Canada data from the previous tax return, I have to use my net income from 2014 - the last year I worked. The fact that I have been retired for 14 months and that my income is one third of what it was in 2014 is not relevant. Next year I may be eligible for assistance, but for the next 10 months I will have to pay the full amount. If I had migrated in May or June, I would have been able to use 2015 data and my cost would have been substantially reduced.

I am not complaining (or at least not too much) about having to pay a bit of money for my health care. I, and my extended family have used more than our share of hospitals and doctors in the past 30 years. But my sense of fairness is disturbed by the fact that if I had moved to anyone of the other seven provinces or the territories,  or if I had migrated a few months later and thereby been able to use 2015 data, my costs would have been different. It seems to me that universal health care should mean that everyone not only has access to good health care, provided in a reasonable time frame, but also that we all share the burden equally.

I have always taken some pride that at least on paper the richest person in Canada and I have the same opportunity to access medical care. The only difference is - if that rich person lives in one of the seven other provinces - they don't have to pay for it and I do!