I admit today that, as a student, I was a victim of cultural genocide. Francophone, I first had to learn the language of the conqueror to obtain my high school and college diplomas in Thetford Mines, where 99% of the members of my tribe spoke French. In law, in a UQAM that was nevertheless anti-colonialist, I was then forced to read in the language of Queen Victoria judgments of the Privy Council of London. Their imperialist nature infuriated me less than their soporific effect. These ordeals did not succeed, however, in undermining my identity. It was when the school of journalism in Paris forced me, as a non-negotiable condition of my success, to learn a third language—that of the conquistador Cortez—that the genocide struck my culture, that I had to renounce my roots and that I was assimilated.
If you feel, like me, that this story is an insult to intelligence, read on.
Speaking of the obligation for Aboriginal students enrolled in English-speaking CEGEPs to take courses in French — which is their third language for them — the Executive Director of the First Nations Education Council, Denis Gros-Louis, declared: I see it as cultural genocide because it says to our students: “If you want your diploma, if you want to go to university, well, force yourself to become a good French-speaking Quebecer and forget your roots.” He added: “We can’t do that to centuries of knowledge that we have passed on from one generation to another. He is not the only one to have diagnosed the toxic effect of learning French on Aboriginal culture. Robin Delaronde, director of education services in Kahnawake, opines: “What Bill 96 does to us is that it tries to assimilate the First Nations of Quebec into the culture, society and language of Quebec. She adds, to clarify her thoughts: “It’s a cultural genocide, it’s as if they wanted to eliminate us. »
What is it basically? Currently, Aboriginal students whose second language is English do their secondary schooling in English, where there are French courses as a condition for obtaining the secondary diploma. The best of them, who go to CEGEP in English, must also pass two French courses for the time being to graduate. This has never before been seen as culturally genocidal. With Bill 96, they will have to pass five French courses rather than two. So two courses is fine, but five courses dissolves your culture and rips out your roots. Even if, precisely, these additional courses are adapted to your level of knowledge of French and allow you to consolidate your skills and acquire a skill that will be useful in all your interactions with the majority society.
Let’s put aside the verbal excess used by the aforementioned Aboriginal leaders. Aren’t the assertions that the study of French dooms these young people to failure an insult to the intelligence of the Aboriginal peoples themselves?
Chief of the Mi’gmaq Council of Gesgapegiag, John Martin, says that “for young people who have studied in English and in Mi’gmaq, it takes a monumental effort to be able to succeed”. However, the other desks of these classes are occupied, in almost 4 out of 10 cases, by students who speak another language at home: Mandarin, Arabic, Spanish. It is also a third language for them.
In fact, no less than 25% of the inhabitants of the island of Montreal speak three languages, including 15% of French speakers, according to Statistics Canada. Proportions that climb to 30% and 18% if we add those who know three to six languages. Why do we assume that young Aboriginal people will have more difficulty than others in French, and more difficulty in French than in geography or chemistry?
Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette refused to meet with Aboriginal leaders. Admittedly, being accused of being genocidal is not the best way to start. But why not offer nations and Aboriginal students who so desire additional free French support and tutoring to ensure their success? I have proposed in these pages that, to ensure a catch-up made necessary by 60 years of residential schools in Quebec, the sums invested by young Aboriginal people should be double what is spent for a young person from the rest of Quebec for the next 60 years. .
Beyond these adjustments, we feel that something else is at work. Adherence to the English colonial language is not a problem, but French is intolerable. The representatives of the traditional Mohawk power, of the Long House, wanted to make it known this week that “this law will damage any friendship existing at this time between our two peoples and destroy any hope of reconciliation”. A self-fulfilling prediction.
Words have meaning — in all languages and no matter how heavy his past oppression.
Accusing French-speaking Quebecers, their National Assembly and their government of preparing a cultural genocide is deeply unfair and offensive. Especially since across Canada, it is in Quebec that Aboriginal languages are doing the best, by far: according to the 2016 census, in the English-speaking provinces, Aboriginal people living on reserves and knowing their language of origin do not exceed 46% in Manitoba, 40% in Ontario, 19% in British Columbia. In French-speaking Quebec? It’s 80%!
Will there be no one, among the Aboriginal leaders, at the Assembly of First Nations or elsewhere, to admit that associating with aggression and an attempt at assimilation the minimum learning of the language of the vast majority of the territory’s inhabitants is a frontal assault on their dignity and self-esteem? That this dubious fight is the best way to damage the existing friendship between our peoples? That we would like to be told that we are despised, us and our language, that we couldn’t find anything better?
[email protected] ; blog: jflisee.org
The duty encourages participation in respectful debate based on of its rules of moderation. In order to avoid overflows, the comments have been closed following this publication.