Critique of Two Articles - Essay Example

Studies were cited that reported that immigrants who fail to learn either the English or French language will be three times more likely to report ill health after four years. Among the reason cited were 1)impairing accesss to health services 2) creating economic difficulties and 3) reducing social participation. Despite of its title, the article second titled Chinese language signs is un-Canadian actually pushes forth for the tolerance of the Chinese language in the Canadian society. It argues that language is not the glue that binds the Canadian society but rather, the principles of federalism, democracy, the rule of law and respect for minority.

It also persuasively argued that Canada prides itself as a cultural mosaic in the same manner America prides itself as a cultural melting pot. The first article Benefit from a common language: campaign to lmit the proliferation of Chinese signage over English deserves public support makes it argument in emphaiszing the English-language sign on two points that can easily be pigeon holed because the validity of its argument is a suspect and reminiscent of old persuasions about language which were already considered to be false.

First, the argument that English-language signs will reduce the segration effects between the Chinese immigrants and other organs of Canadian society is really a narrow minded persuasion and preposterous because it only limits social and national unity to the proficiency of a certain language. Implementing an English only langauge sign will in fact, discriminate more on the minority that will breed resentment and segregation because it is an act of stripping a particular group of their freedom to express themselves which is one of the enshrined principles of the Canadian Constitution.

The intention of reducing segregation between Chinese community and Canadian mainstream society, while good and noble, will in fact be easily defeated by the resentment that a bigoted policy will produce. That instead of enabling unity, will in fact create a social volcano of resentment among the minorities. Second, the study that was used to advance the argument and position that changing the signages to English and the mandated increase of the usage of the English language will have a health benefit needs scrutiny.

Moreso when it threatened that failure to learn the English language will increase the likelihood of getting sick three times in four years. This method, to a certain extent, is reminiscent of autocratic regimes where governments resort to black mail and intimidation to have its way. It is very un-Canadian and makes the position of mandating English only signage weak when it resorted to a dubious study that threatens. True, being proficient in the English language has economic benefits but it does not mean that it had to be imposed by removing Chinese signages.

Because even if it will imposed and those Chinese characters removed, it will still not hasten the learning of the language because the participants are unwilling and it takes time to assimilate. Instead of being threatened by those Chinese characters, Canada as a society should pride with the richness and diversity of its cultural society. The other article titled Chinese language signs is un-Canadian also made a reasonable assertion that language is not what would