Political correctness rules
Re: Langevin Block naming panned by native MPs; June 22 Prime Minister Trudeau’s unilateral decision to rename the Langevin Block illustrates the depths to which contemporary political correctness has sunk. Based on this decision, thousands of buildings, monuments, plaques, and statues across Canada are about to become targets for those who apply 21st- century values to those who lived in different times.
The recent attempts to remove the name Cornwallis in Nova Scotia, along with Quebec’s replacing of numerous English names with those of francophones, are simply continuing manifestations to revise a historical landscape that should be left to be studied within its own time frame.
Our shared past is inundated with all manner of individuals who exhibited traits and foibles ( consistent with the times in which they lived) that we may now find faulty; they cannot be judged by standards inconsistent with their times.
Yes, Father of Confederation Hector- Louis Langevin had strident views concerning indigenous peoples and many other issues of his day.
However, unless Trudeau is prepared to eliminate every single Father of Confederation from every historical site, his attempts to appease selected First Nations groups via this illconceived deletion is misguided and violates the sanctity of our historical record. Jon Bradley, Beaconsfield, Que.
“MP Romeo Saganash, speaking in Cree in the House of Commons, criticized the government for not consulting the Algonquin people.”
Why does he single out the Algonquin people for consultation, while ignoring all other indigenous people for consultation? Isn’t this a form of discrimination, which he so strongly condemns?
Saganash also hit out at the “House’s inability to translate indigenous languages into English and French.”
Saganash goes on: “I worked for 23 years at the United Nations in Geneva. They manage to translate I don’t know how many languages simultaneously, And this is Canada. It’s 2017 and we can’t do it here? That’s absurd.”
In the United Nations, since all members represent all nations in the whole world, and all speak different languages, it would be “absurd” for the United Nations to be limiting itself to one or two languages.
Since our Canadian schools teach either in French, or in English, and all immigrants entering these schools are expected to learn one, or better still, both of these two official languages, and our Canadian Constitution calls for the use of these two official languages, and also since all members of the House of Commons are fluent in one, or both of these official languages, it would be “absurd” to deviate from using these two official languages. Fred Perry, Surrey, B. C.