A recent story in the Globe and Mail, by the gifted and talented Joe Friesen, reports on a European survey of immigration policies. Thanks to new efforts to recognize immigrants' professional credentials, Canada now ranks "just short of the best in the world." How very Canadian (pre-podium-owning, of course).
According to the story, one area in which Canada could improve is in political engagement of immigrants--an odd area for Canada's political systems to overlook, because the story indicates that immigrants are known to be politically active.
While cruising around on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada site, I recently discovered that immigrants aged 55 and over are NOT required to take a citizenship test.
I've written before about citizenship and citizenship tests. And yes, I am on record as saying the discussion of the citizenship test on The Agenda was "yawn-inducing," and yes, I now wish I had paid closer attention to the issues. (Sorry, TVO!)
Because here's the real question about citizenship tests. What is the point?
Is it to ensure basic literacy about cultural and political customs and traditions? Okay: who needs this basic literacy--only immigrants, or everyone? Then why are only immigrants tested? You can say that people who grow up in Canada are tested as part of their experience in the school system, but not all participation in school is equal. (Some 48% of Canadians over the age of 16 don't demonstrate "desired" literacy levels for navigating life.)
Yet testing people before allowing them to enter polling booths is discriminatory, according to the US Voting Rights Act; tests kept African-Americans from voting for 100 years. But how far before an election is it OK to test people? Non-citizens are not allowed to vote in this country, so any test immigrants take will be, technically, before a vote.
A second question: Who gets to decide which cultural and political customs and traditions are tested? Are Canadians tested on persians as well as poutine and donair?
And are these tests educationally valid? Do these tests conform to known "best practices"? Can a kinesthetic learner choreograph and perform a dance to demonstrate the hundreds of federal ridings? Are visual learners encouraged to submit dioramas demonstrating their understanding of the role of the Queen in Canadian foreign policy?
Stepping back from the abyss of absurdity, it's still valid to recap this basic question from two years ago: How many current Canadian citizens can pass their test? (This goes for you, too, Americans.)
And now, the new wrinkle: new citizens over the age of 55 don't need to be tested. Why not? According to the Canadian Business online life expectancy calculator, if I were 55 (which I am NOT), all things remaining equal, I'll live to 85. (Note that none of the questions asked where I was born, which demonstrates either that immigrants can be expected to live about as long as Canadians born here, or that the magazine's test is limited.)
So, if I were to become a citizen at 55, I'd have 30 years of voting ahead of me. It would be good for Canada if I, too, had some basic understanding of this country I'm moving to.
If people over 55 are exempt from testing because of potential language difficulties and/or because learning new material is "hard"--well, what favours are you doing these people to expect less of them because they've lived X years? In fact, mental stimulation is still cited by the U.S. NIH as one way to stave off memory loss.
So wouldn't it make the most sense to require all Canadians over the age of 55 to to continue learning? But then we're back to testing everyone before voting.
Worst of all, I'm afraid I have only questions, no solutions. I do think people entering a country should demonstrate a basic knowledge of the country they're entering--but I believe those who live there should have that same basic knowledge. Yet it's discriminatory to deny citizens the right to vote based on the results of any kind of test.
I am also not convinced that citizenship tests are the best way for immigrants to demonstrate the desired understanding of their new country.
And I don't think that something magical happens in a brain at the age of 55 that should exempt people that age from having the basic knowledge required for citizenship.
So...what is the role of the citizenship test again? Never mind. I'll start studying.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Juxtapositions
Lots of back and forth, this week--the cultural equivalent of the weather this February. One day the temperature is above freezing and everything in sight is melting; twelve hours later the temp is 11 below C or 11 above F, the winds are howling, and it's snowing again. Go figure.
So here are three other pairings.
High tech: In Canada, several federal agencies--Finance, Treasury Board, and Defense Research and Development Canada--are under cyberattack. The attackers are sophisticated enough to make it look like they're working for China. Employees of those agencies who require internet access have been authorized to work in cafes and from home (because those internet connections are so much more secure??). This has been going on for some six weeks but came to light only recently (did a cloaking device fail?).
Low tech: Minister Oda hand-drawing a caret (like this ^ ) and writing "not" to deny funding to an NGO. Here's a picture. My earlier take is here (hey, the "not" jokes used to be funny). Political commentators, and not especially left-leaning ones, either, are still talking about this, with ever-heightening rhetoric.
Haves: In the U.S., the Obama administration extended the Bush tax cuts for those whose income is more than $250,000 (for a couple, $200K for a single). Reason: people who pay taxes in the U.S. (and those of us U.S. citizens who legally DON'T because we PAY PAY PAY in another country but are still forced by U.S. tax law to justify EVERY SINGLE YEAR why we don't pay in the U.S. TOO, not that I'm bitter) are still voters. In the U.S., voters hate "tax increases," even if they are technically just cuts that are expiring, and even if they apply only to people who make a whackload more than you.
Have-nots: The new budget in the U.S. includes a $5.50 (Canadian? The loonie is worth more these days!) surcharge on people entering the U.S. from Canada by air and sea. This will net $100 million or so in revenue, a tiny blip on the screen of their need for revenue, especially compared to what they could have made had they reversed those tax cuts on the wealthy, but like whatever. Reason: Few paying the $5.50 vote in U.S. elections. I say "few" because Americans travel from Canada into the U.S. at times, too. However, I won't be paying this surcharge because flying from Minneapolis cuts the cost of travel significantly, even with gas/hotel/time factored in.
If you like shouting: read What is America, by Ronald Wright (Alfred A. Knopf Canada). Written in 2008 before the election, it's full of sloppy scholarship and polemic. In fact, the title could use a caret: What Is ^ America; at the caret, insert Wrong With. His thesis seems to be that "America," a term that changes meaning several times in the book, is and has always been a horrible, exploitive place and that the neoconservative fundamentalist approach to life and the world is wrong. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I just don't think shouting is the same thing as making an effective case. Also, he's lazy in his research and writing, and he has no solutions. (Yes, some of the shouting related to this book came from me as I read.)
If you like muttering: read Doing the Continental, by David Dyment (Dundurn Press, Toronto). Full disclosure: I have only been able to dip into this book. However, I heard him speak, and he claims his book was aimed at the regular, nonspecialist person riding the ferry or the subway. If that's true, his editors should have had him try another pass, especially at sentences like this one: "The Americans are so much a part of our reality that they contextualize us" (p. 16). However, what I appreciate about this book and the writer is that 1. he claims a new type of relationship between the two countries is possible and 2. that Canada holds the power to effect this change.
That's enough whiplash for one week, eh.
So here are three other pairings.
High tech: In Canada, several federal agencies--Finance, Treasury Board, and Defense Research and Development Canada--are under cyberattack. The attackers are sophisticated enough to make it look like they're working for China. Employees of those agencies who require internet access have been authorized to work in cafes and from home (because those internet connections are so much more secure??). This has been going on for some six weeks but came to light only recently (did a cloaking device fail?).
Low tech: Minister Oda hand-drawing a caret (like this ^ ) and writing "not" to deny funding to an NGO. Here's a picture. My earlier take is here (hey, the "not" jokes used to be funny). Political commentators, and not especially left-leaning ones, either, are still talking about this, with ever-heightening rhetoric.
Haves: In the U.S., the Obama administration extended the Bush tax cuts for those whose income is more than $250,000 (for a couple, $200K for a single). Reason: people who pay taxes in the U.S. (and those of us U.S. citizens who legally DON'T because we PAY PAY PAY in another country but are still forced by U.S. tax law to justify EVERY SINGLE YEAR why we don't pay in the U.S. TOO, not that I'm bitter) are still voters. In the U.S., voters hate "tax increases," even if they are technically just cuts that are expiring, and even if they apply only to people who make a whackload more than you.
Have-nots: The new budget in the U.S. includes a $5.50 (Canadian? The loonie is worth more these days!) surcharge on people entering the U.S. from Canada by air and sea. This will net $100 million or so in revenue, a tiny blip on the screen of their need for revenue, especially compared to what they could have made had they reversed those tax cuts on the wealthy, but like whatever. Reason: Few paying the $5.50 vote in U.S. elections. I say "few" because Americans travel from Canada into the U.S. at times, too. However, I won't be paying this surcharge because flying from Minneapolis cuts the cost of travel significantly, even with gas/hotel/time factored in.
If you like shouting: read What is America, by Ronald Wright (Alfred A. Knopf Canada). Written in 2008 before the election, it's full of sloppy scholarship and polemic. In fact, the title could use a caret: What Is ^ America; at the caret, insert Wrong With. His thesis seems to be that "America," a term that changes meaning several times in the book, is and has always been a horrible, exploitive place and that the neoconservative fundamentalist approach to life and the world is wrong. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I just don't think shouting is the same thing as making an effective case. Also, he's lazy in his research and writing, and he has no solutions. (Yes, some of the shouting related to this book came from me as I read.)
If you like muttering: read Doing the Continental, by David Dyment (Dundurn Press, Toronto). Full disclosure: I have only been able to dip into this book. However, I heard him speak, and he claims his book was aimed at the regular, nonspecialist person riding the ferry or the subway. If that's true, his editors should have had him try another pass, especially at sentences like this one: "The Americans are so much a part of our reality that they contextualize us" (p. 16). However, what I appreciate about this book and the writer is that 1. he claims a new type of relationship between the two countries is possible and 2. that Canada holds the power to effect this change.
That's enough whiplash for one week, eh.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
47 Days of Gratitude, Week 1
Here are the status updates from Week 1. You'll notice (or maybe you won't) I use "Gratitude" in the tag but changed that to "Thanks" in Facebook to save characters. And then I didn't need all those characters after all, which is probably for the best.
47 Days of Thanks, Day 1: A quiet north-of-the-border Thanksgiving. I'm so grateful I had the chance to be with family recently!
47 Days of Thanks, Day 2: I'm grateful that I enjoy my regular life so much that I spend holidays, like today, doing many of the same things.
47 Days of Thanks, Day 3: I'm grateful that yesterday I happened to be in the right place (kitchen) at the right time (staring out the window at about noon) to see two bald eagles doing aerobatics over the bay.
47 Days of Thanks, Day 4: I'm VERY grateful for the inspiration of hearing good writing read VERY well last night at the reading sponsored by the Northwestern Ontario Writers Workshop. People around here do good work!
47 Days of Thanks, Day 5: I'm grateful that creative, dedicated people go into science and engineering to make possible new technology that will improve our lives--and pull off feats like the miner rescue in Chile. Now, how about making it safer to be a miner??
47 Days of Thanks, Day 6: I'm grateful that gray, cloudy days (like yesterday) can start with a colo(u)rful, striking sunrise! And I get another one this morning--bonus!
47 Days of Thanks, Day 7: I'm grateful for all the online resources that make it possible for me to participate in today's Book Club discussion without re-reading every single word of A Tale of Two Cities. (It was an issue of time, not interest, but I know my high school English teacher looks down on me in disapproval. Sigh.)
It's been an interesting journey so far. Of course I have developed "rules," or anyway "rule." I have picked one thing from that morning or the previous day that actually inspired the feeling of gratitude in me, instead of casting about for something I think should be grateful for or going for a "motherhood" topic.
I'm also finding that I stop occasionally during the day to notice feeling grateful for something, because I know I will have to pick something for my status update. Which, as my mother would say, is the benefit of the discipline of doing gratitude this way.
So...on we go.
47 Days of Thanks, Day 1: A quiet north-of-the-border Thanksgiving. I'm so grateful I had the chance to be with family recently!
47 Days of Thanks, Day 2: I'm grateful that I enjoy my regular life so much that I spend holidays, like today, doing many of the same things.
47 Days of Thanks, Day 3: I'm grateful that yesterday I happened to be in the right place (kitchen) at the right time (staring out the window at about noon) to see two bald eagles doing aerobatics over the bay.
47 Days of Thanks, Day 4: I'm VERY grateful for the inspiration of hearing good writing read VERY well last night at the reading sponsored by the Northwestern Ontario Writers Workshop. People around here do good work!
47 Days of Thanks, Day 5: I'm grateful that creative, dedicated people go into science and engineering to make possible new technology that will improve our lives--and pull off feats like the miner rescue in Chile. Now, how about making it safer to be a miner??
47 Days of Thanks, Day 6: I'm grateful that gray, cloudy days (like yesterday) can start with a colo(u)rful, striking sunrise! And I get another one this morning--bonus!
47 Days of Thanks, Day 7: I'm grateful for all the online resources that make it possible for me to participate in today's Book Club discussion without re-reading every single word of A Tale of Two Cities. (It was an issue of time, not interest, but I know my high school English teacher looks down on me in disapproval. Sigh.)
It's been an interesting journey so far. Of course I have developed "rules," or anyway "rule." I have picked one thing from that morning or the previous day that actually inspired the feeling of gratitude in me, instead of casting about for something I think should be grateful for or going for a "motherhood" topic.
I'm also finding that I stop occasionally during the day to notice feeling grateful for something, because I know I will have to pick something for my status update. Which, as my mother would say, is the benefit of the discipline of doing gratitude this way.
So...on we go.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
A Good Beginning
What the heck is going on in Afghanistan these days? Are Canadian forces "coming home" in 2011 or not? What does "coming home" mean, anyway?
Enough with the questions. Here's a new site to help give Canadians, and anyone else who looks, a chance to learn more about Afghanistan and what Canada's forces are doing there: Learn the Facts: Afghanistan.
It's a new site, just finding its feet, its experts, its content. It wants to "provide objective information from credible sources in a clear, deliverable way." It was founded and is managed by two civilian students at the Royal Military College of Canada.
The site may not now be, and won't be, perfect. However, the idea -- providing a place for learning and discussion, when media coverage is superficial and driven by politics -- is excellent.
One hears a lot of claims about "new media." But if this site, like Factcheck.org (also not perfect but better than nothing), is an example of "new media," I'm all for it.
Enough with the questions. Here's a new site to help give Canadians, and anyone else who looks, a chance to learn more about Afghanistan and what Canada's forces are doing there: Learn the Facts: Afghanistan.
It's a new site, just finding its feet, its experts, its content. It wants to "provide objective information from credible sources in a clear, deliverable way." It was founded and is managed by two civilian students at the Royal Military College of Canada.
The site may not now be, and won't be, perfect. However, the idea -- providing a place for learning and discussion, when media coverage is superficial and driven by politics -- is excellent.
One hears a lot of claims about "new media." But if this site, like Factcheck.org (also not perfect but better than nothing), is an example of "new media," I'm all for it.
Monday, November 16, 2009
What's Up with the Yanks?
No, this has nothing to do with baseball. Not those Yankees. I'm talking about the rest of them--all 300 million who live in that big country south of here.
Here's something I never thought I'd say: I miss watching Regis and Kelly.
Now I have to back-pedal. The show used to come on after Canada AM, at 9 a.m. On occasion, I slept late and could still find myself sitting dazed on the couch downing coffee at 9, and I would watch their morning "host chat."
I never watched the show when I lived in the U.S.--I didn't need to. However, now that I'm in this "whole other country," I found Regis and Kelly to be a really useful way to keep up with popular culture in the U.S.
Sure, I could find other ways to find out what's on the mind of the Average American. But what else popped into my living room conveniently at 9 a.m. for 15 minutes? Nothing, that's what.
Instead of showing R&K, the local channel bumped the Christian morning show (brrr) into the 9 a.m. slot and runs The View at 11. I have tried watching The View. Too much shrieking and direct sales. Whoopi isn't worth it.
So that leaves me with Entertainment Tonight, which is nauseating about half the time. Plus the internet, plus various other social media.
But geez. No Regis bewailing the performance of his Notre Dame football team of a Monday morning? No Kelly to talk about her shoes and her family and her dog and the production assistant's upcoming wedding?
OK, it was never particularly fascinating. But I was used to it, darn it. Farewell, acquaintances-I-never-really-liked. See you on Facebook.
Here's something I never thought I'd say: I miss watching Regis and Kelly.
Now I have to back-pedal. The show used to come on after Canada AM, at 9 a.m. On occasion, I slept late and could still find myself sitting dazed on the couch downing coffee at 9, and I would watch their morning "host chat."
I never watched the show when I lived in the U.S.--I didn't need to. However, now that I'm in this "whole other country," I found Regis and Kelly to be a really useful way to keep up with popular culture in the U.S.
Sure, I could find other ways to find out what's on the mind of the Average American. But what else popped into my living room conveniently at 9 a.m. for 15 minutes? Nothing, that's what.
Instead of showing R&K, the local channel bumped the Christian morning show (brrr) into the 9 a.m. slot and runs The View at 11. I have tried watching The View. Too much shrieking and direct sales. Whoopi isn't worth it.
So that leaves me with Entertainment Tonight, which is nauseating about half the time. Plus the internet, plus various other social media.
But geez. No Regis bewailing the performance of his Notre Dame football team of a Monday morning? No Kelly to talk about her shoes and her family and her dog and the production assistant's upcoming wedding?
OK, it was never particularly fascinating. But I was used to it, darn it. Farewell, acquaintances-I-never-really-liked. See you on Facebook.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Citizenship: You Brought Your #2 Pencils, Right?
As I have said, citizenship is in the news up here. I'm eligible to take the test to become a Canadian citizen because I have lived here for three years as a permanent resident.
But I like to ace tests. I like to be 100 percent at things. I haven't had a chance to study. And based on what I saw last night, I may need some study time.
Last night on TV Ontario (the .5 channel of our 2.5 channels), The Agenda assembled a panel to discuss multiculturalism and citizenship. A lot of it was yawn-inducing, but some was not. People seemed to think the test was either trivial or not, and it either could use some tweaking or was fine as is. (They disagreed politely, of course.)
However, the questions they mentioned sounded hard to me. As I told the panel last night, "How many Canadians born in Canada could pass this test?" (They didn't respond. Darn this old broadcast-style technology.)
Let's get started. You're on the hono(u)r system.
1. How many electoral districts are there in Canada? (This question is under the Federal Elections heading, if that helps.) Your options: 101, 211, 308, 176.
2. Who is Canada's Head of State? Your options: Queen Elizabeth II, Jean Chretien, Adrienne Clarkson, Wayne Gretsky
3. Which animal is an official symbol of Canada? Your options: Moose, Black Bear, Canadian Loon, Beaver
For you giggling Americans, here are some of your questions. These are short answer.
1. What is the supreme court law of the United States?
2. Who elects the president of the United States?
3. Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Not as easy as it sounds, is it? At least attempt answers before reading on. Don't think of it as "being stupid." Think of it as an opportunity to learn. A knowledge gap to be filled.
Answers for the Canadian test: 308, QE II, and the Beaver. I happened to get these correct (it was a total guess on the electoral districts) on the practice test. I missed the questions (not reproduced here) about how often elections must be held and which rights are protected in the Charter.
Answers for the American test: the Constitution, the electoral college, and everyone living in the U.S. (citizen and non-citizen alike). Surprised?
To take a sample Canadian test, go here. To see an American Q&A, go here (it's at About.com, but taken from the .gov site). Note how many of the questions on the U.S. test relate to the flag. There's even a question about an incendiary statement possibly made by a patriot a couple hundred years ago. If you want to study up for the U.S. test, here are some resources.
And last, but not least, a question for those on both sides of the border:
4. How many 9/11 terrorists came into the U.S. from Canada?
Thank you for your attention. Class dismissed.
But I like to ace tests. I like to be 100 percent at things. I haven't had a chance to study. And based on what I saw last night, I may need some study time.
Last night on TV Ontario (the .5 channel of our 2.5 channels), The Agenda assembled a panel to discuss multiculturalism and citizenship. A lot of it was yawn-inducing, but some was not. People seemed to think the test was either trivial or not, and it either could use some tweaking or was fine as is. (They disagreed politely, of course.)
However, the questions they mentioned sounded hard to me. As I told the panel last night, "How many Canadians born in Canada could pass this test?" (They didn't respond. Darn this old broadcast-style technology.)
Let's get started. You're on the hono(u)r system.
1. How many electoral districts are there in Canada? (This question is under the Federal Elections heading, if that helps.) Your options: 101, 211, 308, 176.
2. Who is Canada's Head of State? Your options: Queen Elizabeth II, Jean Chretien, Adrienne Clarkson, Wayne Gretsky
3. Which animal is an official symbol of Canada? Your options: Moose, Black Bear, Canadian Loon, Beaver
For you giggling Americans, here are some of your questions. These are short answer.
1. What is the supreme court law of the United States?
2. Who elects the president of the United States?
3. Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Not as easy as it sounds, is it? At least attempt answers before reading on. Don't think of it as "being stupid." Think of it as an opportunity to learn. A knowledge gap to be filled.
Answers for the Canadian test: 308, QE II, and the Beaver. I happened to get these correct (it was a total guess on the electoral districts) on the practice test. I missed the questions (not reproduced here) about how often elections must be held and which rights are protected in the Charter.
Answers for the American test: the Constitution, the electoral college, and everyone living in the U.S. (citizen and non-citizen alike). Surprised?
To take a sample Canadian test, go here. To see an American Q&A, go here (it's at About.com, but taken from the .gov site). Note how many of the questions on the U.S. test relate to the flag. There's even a question about an incendiary statement possibly made by a patriot a couple hundred years ago. If you want to study up for the U.S. test, here are some resources.
And last, but not least, a question for those on both sides of the border:
4. How many 9/11 terrorists came into the U.S. from Canada?
Thank you for your attention. Class dismissed.
Monday, February 2, 2009
In My Dreams
The groundhogs have spoken. Six more weeks of winter. Traffic to the website is too high for me to create a link, though, so you just have to believe me.
Canada has its own groundhog, Wiarton Willie. Canadian schools also have educational resources for groundhog day available online.
So: six more weeks? See the subject line.
Actually, I enjoy winter and winter weather. I like being able to be outside, though. I'm slowly slowly figuring out how the "wear snow boots, bring shoes," "hang coats outside meeting rooms" rules work. I get stir-crazy when it's too cold (say, below 0F) to enjoy being outside much. I'm still searching for boots that actually keep my feet warm, but it's a fun search.
It's also possible that the weather will be different mid-March. But it won't be spring. The ground will still be frozen. The snow cover may be thin--possibly too thin to ski. The lake will still be frozen. And whatever it's called, it's a season that requires alertness: water/sewer pipes actually are more likely to freeze without the snow cover.
But if this year is like last year and the one before, mid-March will still be mostly white. Then comes April, the brown month. Spring? Late May, early June.
So really, more winter? Okay. It's the dentist (today, 2 p.m.) that I don't like. (Nothing personal.)
Canada has its own groundhog, Wiarton Willie. Canadian schools also have educational resources for groundhog day available online.
So: six more weeks? See the subject line.
Actually, I enjoy winter and winter weather. I like being able to be outside, though. I'm slowly slowly figuring out how the "wear snow boots, bring shoes," "hang coats outside meeting rooms" rules work. I get stir-crazy when it's too cold (say, below 0F) to enjoy being outside much. I'm still searching for boots that actually keep my feet warm, but it's a fun search.
It's also possible that the weather will be different mid-March. But it won't be spring. The ground will still be frozen. The snow cover may be thin--possibly too thin to ski. The lake will still be frozen. And whatever it's called, it's a season that requires alertness: water/sewer pipes actually are more likely to freeze without the snow cover.
But if this year is like last year and the one before, mid-March will still be mostly white. Then comes April, the brown month. Spring? Late May, early June.
So really, more winter? Okay. It's the dentist (today, 2 p.m.) that I don't like. (Nothing personal.)
Friday, January 30, 2009
Brief Update: O(dd) Canada
This morning, the story on CBC.ca had 870 comments. People are talking.
They're talking more about Ignatieff putting the government on probation--more than 2200 comments.
But both are among the most blogged about stories. For what that's worth.
They're talking more about Ignatieff putting the government on probation--more than 2200 comments.
But both are among the most blogged about stories. For what that's worth.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
O(dd) Canada
Now this is a story I have never seen in the U.S.
A precis: An elementary school principal in a small New Brunswick school has decided to drop the singing of "O Canada," the country's national anthem, as part of its daily routine. The reason? Some of the parents don't want their children to participate.
I'm not sure why--though possibly the line "God keep our land glorious and free" has something to do with it.
I don't get it. I can see objecting to singing the national anthem every day because that's time that could be spent reading or learning multiplication tables, or, God help us, for anti-bullying workshops. But dropping the national anthem because the principal wants "every student to feel welcome" at school? Hmm.
Of course, I'm from a different time (1960s) and place (the southern U.S.). In third grade, we memorized the 100th Psalm as a class. We also sang "My Country 'Tis of Thee," known in Canada as "the song that they sing that's really 'God Save the Queen.'" I think that was daily, too.
Furthermore, we bowed our heads as a class for the third verse, "Our Father's God, to Thee, author of liberty, to Thee we sing." And you'll notice that I remember these words some 40 years later. (I also know the words to the theme song of Gilligan's Island and most of the lyrics to songs from The Music Man, so don't consider this a patriotic feat.)
I don't think it was just that the lovely and adorable Mrs. Boothe, my teacher for third grade, was particularly patriotic. It was what one did at school. I think we also said the Pledge of Allegiance every day. I know in high school, at our weekly pep assemblies, we always sang the national anthem AND the state song of Oklahoma. But I think that was partly because our state song was actually a good song.
These experiences didn't brainwash me. Surely you don't imagine by now that I'm blindly loyal to the U.S. I certainly carp and criticize everyone and everything, including church teachings. I even grouse about things in my adopted country.
But these experiences did give me a sense of the "rules" that I had to play by to learn, live, and work in that community--in other words, they taught me about the dominant culture. I don't know what would have happened if my parents hadn't been okay with my participation in that part of the culture, but I imagine they'd have made sure I knew it. They certainly didn't allow me to participate in everything the neighbo(u)r kids did.
For example, when the local skating rink gave free tickets for report cards with As, my parents didn't let me go cash in. They thought I should get good grades for no reason and not expect rewards or bribes. Yes, my friends thought I was weird and that my parents were "mean." And I still can't skate. But I'm over it. Really.
The other thing is, I cannot imagine this conversation happening in the U.S. Have I just not been paying attention to U.S. news? Is it just that I don't have kids in school?
Stay tuned--I bet this will generate discussion among Canadians. It will be interesting to see how that goes.
A precis: An elementary school principal in a small New Brunswick school has decided to drop the singing of "O Canada," the country's national anthem, as part of its daily routine. The reason? Some of the parents don't want their children to participate.
I'm not sure why--though possibly the line "God keep our land glorious and free" has something to do with it.
I don't get it. I can see objecting to singing the national anthem every day because that's time that could be spent reading or learning multiplication tables, or, God help us, for anti-bullying workshops. But dropping the national anthem because the principal wants "every student to feel welcome" at school? Hmm.
Of course, I'm from a different time (1960s) and place (the southern U.S.). In third grade, we memorized the 100th Psalm as a class. We also sang "My Country 'Tis of Thee," known in Canada as "the song that they sing that's really 'God Save the Queen.'" I think that was daily, too.
Furthermore, we bowed our heads as a class for the third verse, "Our Father's God, to Thee, author of liberty, to Thee we sing." And you'll notice that I remember these words some 40 years later. (I also know the words to the theme song of Gilligan's Island and most of the lyrics to songs from The Music Man, so don't consider this a patriotic feat.)
I don't think it was just that the lovely and adorable Mrs. Boothe, my teacher for third grade, was particularly patriotic. It was what one did at school. I think we also said the Pledge of Allegiance every day. I know in high school, at our weekly pep assemblies, we always sang the national anthem AND the state song of Oklahoma. But I think that was partly because our state song was actually a good song.
These experiences didn't brainwash me. Surely you don't imagine by now that I'm blindly loyal to the U.S. I certainly carp and criticize everyone and everything, including church teachings. I even grouse about things in my adopted country.
But these experiences did give me a sense of the "rules" that I had to play by to learn, live, and work in that community--in other words, they taught me about the dominant culture. I don't know what would have happened if my parents hadn't been okay with my participation in that part of the culture, but I imagine they'd have made sure I knew it. They certainly didn't allow me to participate in everything the neighbo(u)r kids did.
For example, when the local skating rink gave free tickets for report cards with As, my parents didn't let me go cash in. They thought I should get good grades for no reason and not expect rewards or bribes. Yes, my friends thought I was weird and that my parents were "mean." And I still can't skate. But I'm over it. Really.
The other thing is, I cannot imagine this conversation happening in the U.S. Have I just not been paying attention to U.S. news? Is it just that I don't have kids in school?
Stay tuned--I bet this will generate discussion among Canadians. It will be interesting to see how that goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
