英语论文网

ns ( L.I.N.C. ) Let me deal with L.I.N.C., as a way of making my Frierian case. Several of the intended beneficiaries, members of the oppressed masses, are residents of a capitalist society whose government is an aggressive promoter of globalisation, one of the most powerful indicies of socio-economic inequity and cultural imperialism. The new immigrants, once victimised by by oppression in their own societies, must now face a different version of domination. One very relevant issue for promoters of L.I.N.C. programmes across Canada is whether there are efforts in the programmes to grapple with oppression. The response to this query is emphatically negative. On the face of it, a national administration which promotes globalisation but simultaneously integrates opposition to domination in its language programmes would be adopting a contradictory posture. There is, however, a stronger reason for the foregoing response. It can be found in the inextricable connection between L.I.N.C. programmes and multiculturalism. The latter has been criticised by Price ( 1978 ), Bannerji ( 1997 ), Walcott ( 1997 ), and Ng ( 1993 ) for reproducing white superiority in Canada. What is the connection between L.I.N.C. and multiculturalism? My response shall be followed by my critical remarks about multiculturalism. A Canadian Standing Committee of 1987 claims that the goal of multiculturalism is the integration - not assimilation - of racial and ethnic groups. This is a position offered explicitly by the originator of this policy, none other than Pierre Elliot Trudeau, late Canadian Prime Minister. In October, 1971, he stated publicly that there cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of French and British heritage and another for members of other groups. He added that despite the existence of two official languages, English and French, “...there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other...A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework commends itself to the government as the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians.” Of vital importance to me are Mr. Trudeau’s statements about the bilingual framework, two official languages, English and French. It is this framework which must be considered in the foreground of what is contained in the Canadian Multicultural Act of 1988. According to the Act, the Canadian Constitution recognises the significance of maintaining and expanding the multicultural heritage of Canadians. The Canadian Government also recognises the racial, national, ethnic, and religious diversity of citizens as a basic feature of the society. It is committed to a multuiculturalism policy aimed at the preservation and enhancement of cultural heritage which is consistent with accomplishing the equality of all citizens within economic, social, cultural, and political spheres of life. I cannot see how equality can be accomplished in a climate of official bilingualism associated with languages whose historic dominance has been a major feature of cultural and linguistic imperialism. It is not irrelevant for me to note that within the national Canadian media - both print and audio-visual - Canadian culture is typically presented as white anglophone and franchophone culture. Discourse about other cultures is a poor distant relative to the Eurocentric focus. This peripheral presence is not divorced from a continual battle between strident franchophone separatist