Analyse des attitudes envers les sciences chez des élèves du secondaire d'origine haïtienne de milieux défavorisés de la région de Montréal

Ayant en perspective la faible représentativité des élèves d’origine haïtienne issus des milieux défavorisés de la grande région de Montréal dans les filières scientifiques à l’école secondaire et dans les orientations de carrière, cette étude vise à examiner l’incidence de caractéristiques individuelles ainsi que de facteurs associés à l’environnement familial, scolaire, socioéconomique et culturel sur les attitudes de ces élèves envers les sciences. L’analyse des données est basée sur les résultats d’un questionnaire portant sur le profil sociodémographique d’un groupe d’élèves de quatrième et cinquième année fréquentant deux écoles secondaires multiethniques de la couronne-nord de Montréal ainsi que sur des entretiens avec quinze de ces élèves qui sont d’origine haïtienne. Des entretiens ont également été réalisés avec des parents, un membre d’un organisme communautaire, des membres du personnel des écoles ainsi que des professionnels et scientifiques haïtiano-québécois dans le but de porter un regard croisé sur les différentes positions exprimées par les quinze élèves. Le modèle écosystémique de Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1986) a servi de cadre de référence permettant de dégager les pôles les plus marquants dans les attitudes envers les sciences chez les élèves d’origine haïtienne. La synthèse des opinions exprimées par les différents répondants souligne l’existence d’un environnement peu valorisant des sciences autour des élèves d’origine haïtienne. Les conditions socioéconomiques, les pratiques familiales, le statut ethnoculturel ainsi que des représentations individuelles des sciences concourent à créer et à maintenir des attitudes très peu engageantes envers les sciences chez ces élèves. L’étude met en évidence l’urgence de démystifier les sciences en brisant certains stéréotypes qui empêchent certaines catégories d’élèves d’accéder aux sciences. Elle commande aussi les politiques en matière d’éducation d’être plus ouvertes aux différences ethnoculturelles et d’explorer des manières dynamiques de rendre la culture scientifique accessible à tous les groupes sociaux.

Le retour des réfugiés et des personnes déplacées dans le cadre de la consolidation de la paix : les cas de la Croatie et de la Bosnie-Herzégovine

Le travail appréhende la question du retour des réfugiés et des personnes déplacées en Croatie et en Bosnie-Herzégovine, dans le cadre des opérations de consolidation de la paix qui se sont déroulées dans la région. En effet, la réintégration des populations déplacées dans leur domicile d’origine a été présentée comme l’une des priorités par la communauté internationale, et comme la solution idéale afin d’encourager la réconciliation dans la région et, surtout, d’y restituer la diversité ethnique. Or, les bilans respectifs des deux anciennes républiques à l’égard du retour des minorités, présentent des différences significatives. Les facteurs internes auxquels se butaient les processus de retour dans les deux pays étaient sensiblement les mêmes. Dans ces conditions, la variable déterminante semble s’être trouvé au niveau de la nature des interventions internationales qui se sont déployées en Bosnie-Herzégovine et en Croatie. Dans l’ensemble, la Bosnie-Herzégovine a bénéficié, de la part des divers acteurs internationaux, d’une attention plus soutenue à cet égard que la Croatie. Cette situation s’est traduite par le fait que le premier pays s’est vu accordé davantage de ressources financières, logistiques et diplomatiques afin de propulser le retour des minorités ethniques. En outre, elle met en exergue l’inconsistence de la rhétorique internationale qui défend des principes associés à la défense des droits humains, du pluralisme et de la multiethnicité mais dont l’application concrète se heurte aux impératifs domestiques des pays impliqués et aux autres exigences relatives à la reconstruction post-conflit.

The Dynamics of the Policies of Ethnic Cleansing in Silesia in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

Through studying German, Polish and Czech publications on Silesia, Mr. Kamusella found that most of them, instead of trying to objectively analyse the past, are devoted to proving some essential "Germanness", "Polishness" or "Czechness" of this region. He believes that the terminology and thought-patterns of nationalist ideology are so deeply entrenched in the minds of researchers that they do not consider themselves nationalist. However, he notes that, due to the spread of the results of the latest studies on ethnicity/nationalism (by Gellner, Hobsbawm, Smith, Erikson Buillig, amongst others), German publications on Silesia have become quite objective since the 1980s, and the same process (impeded by under funding) has been taking place in Poland and the Czech Republic since 1989. His own research totals some 500 pages, in English, presented on disc. So what are the traps into which historians have been inclined to fall? There is a tendency for them to treat Silesia as an entity which has existed forever, though Mr. Kamusella points out that it emerged as a region only at the beginning of the 11th century. These same historians speak of Poles, Czechs and Germans in Silesia, though Mr. Kamusella found that before the mid-19th century, identification was with an inhabitant's local area, religion or dynasty. In fact, a German national identity started to be forged in Prussian Silesia only during the Liberation War against Napoleon (1813-1815). It was concretised in 1861 in the form of the first Prussian census, when the language a citizen spoke was equated with his/her nationality. A similar census was carried out in Austrian Silesia only in 1881. The censuses forced the Silesians to choose their nationality despite their multiethnic multicultural identities. It was the active promotion of a German identity in Prussian Silesia, and Vienna's uneasy acceptance of the national identities in Austrian Silesia which stimulated the development of Polish national, Moravian ethnic and Upper Silesian ethnic regional identities in Upper Silesia, and Polish national, Czech national, Moravian ethnic and Silesian ethnic identities in Austrian Silesia. While traditional historians speak of the "nationalist struggle" as though it were a permanent characteristic of Silesia, Mr. Kamusella points out that such a struggle only developed in earnest after 1918. What is more, he shows how it has been conveniently forgotten that, besides the national players, there were also significant ethnic movements of Moravians, Upper Silesians, Silesians and the tutejsi (i.e. those who still chose to identify with their locality). At this point Mr. Kamusella moves into the area of linguistics. While traditionally historians have spoken of the conflicts between the three national languages (German, Polish and Czech), Mr Kamusella reminds us that the standardised forms of these languages, which we choose to dub "national", were developed only in the mid-18th century, after 1869 (when Polish became the official language in Galicia), and after the 1870s (when Czech became the official language in Bohemia). As for standard German, it was only widely promoted in Silesia from the mid 19th century onwards. In fact, the majority of the population of Prussian Upper Silesia and Austrian Silesia were bi- or even multilingual. What is more, the "Polish" and "Czech" Silesians spoke were not the standard languages we know today, but a continuum of West-Slavic dialects in the countryside and a continuum of West-Slavic/German creoles in the urbanised areas. Such was the linguistic confusion that, from time to time, some ethnic/regional and Church activists strove to create a distinctive Upper Silesian/Silesian language on the basis of these dialects/creoles, but their efforts were thwarted by the staunch promotion of standard German, and after 1918, of standard Polish and Czech. Still on the subject of language, Mr. Kamusella draws attention to a problem around the issue of place names and personal names. Polish historians use current Polish versions of the Silesian place names, Czechs use current Polish/Czech versions of the place names, and Germans use the German versions which were in use in Silesia up to 1945. Mr. Kamusella attempted to avoid this, as he sees it, nationalist tendency, by using an appropriate version of a place name for a given period and providing its modern counterpart in parentheses. In the case of modern place names he gives the German version in parentheses. As for the name of historical figures, he strove to use the name entered on the birth certificate of the person involved, and by doing so avoid such confusion as, for instance, surrounds the Austrian Silesian pastor L.J. Sherschnik, who in German became Scherschnick, in Polish, Szersznik, and in Czech, Sersnik. Indeed, the prospective Silesian scholar should, Mr. Kamusella suggests, as well as the three languages directly involved in the area itself, know English and French, since many documents and books on the subject have been published in these languages, and even Latin, when dealing in depth with the period before the mid-19th century. Mr. Kamusella divides the policies of ethnic cleansing into two categories. The first he classifies as soft, meaning that policy is confined to the educational system, army, civil service and the church, and the aim is that everyone learn the language of the dominant group. The second is the group of hard policies, which amount to what is popularly labelled as ethnic cleansing. This category of policy aims at the total assimilation and/or physical liquidation of the non-dominant groups non-congruent with the ideal of homogeneity of a given nation-state. Mr. Kamusella found that soft policies were consciously and systematically employed by Prussia/Germany in Prussian Silesia from the 1860s to 1918, whereas in Austrian Silesia, Vienna quite inconsistently dabbled in them from the 1880s to 1917. In the inter-war period, the emergence of the nation-states of Poland and Czechoslovakia led to full employment of the soft policies and partial employment of the hard ones (curbed by the League of Nations minorities protection system) in Czechoslovakian Silesia, German Upper Silesia and the Polish parts of Upper and Austrian Silesia. In 1939-1945, Berlin started consistently using all the "hard" methods to homogenise Polish and Czechoslovakian Silesia which fell, in their entirety, within the Reich's borders. After World War II Czechoslovakia regained its prewar part of Silesia while Poland was given its prewar section plus almost the whole of the prewar German province. Subsequently, with the active involvement and support of the Soviet Union, Warsaw and Prague expelled the majority of Germans from Silesia in 1945-1948 (there were also instances of the Poles expelling Upper Silesian Czechs/Moravians, and of the Czechs expelling Czech Silesian Poles/pro-Polish Silesians). During the period of communist rule, the same two countries carried out a thorough Polonisation and Czechisation of Silesia, submerging this region into a new, non-historically based administrative division. Democratisation in the wake of the fall of communism, and a gradual retreat from the nationalist ideal of the homogeneous nation-state with a view to possible membership of the European Union, caused the abolition of the "hard" policies and phasing out of the "soft" ones. Consequently, limited revivals of various ethnic/national minorities have been observed in Czech and Polish Silesia, whereas Silesian regionalism has become popular in the westernmost part of Silesia which remained part of Germany. Mr. Kamusella believes it is possible that, with the overcoming of the nation-state discourse in European politics, when the expression of multiethnicity and multilingualism has become the cause of the day in Silesia, regionalism will hold sway in this region, uniting its ethnically/nationally variegated population in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity championed by the European Union.

Constructing a normative national identity: the Leitkultur debate in Germany 2000/2001

In recent years, public discourse about German national identity has increasingly focussed on the large foreign population within Germany's borders. Whilst right-wing politicians such as Edmund Stoiber foster fears of identity loss ('Überfremdung'), more liberal observers, and indeed the ruling red-green coalition, acknowledge that multiethnicity has by now become an integral part of this identity. The debate experienced its provisional climax in late 2000 and early 2001. Friedrich Merz, then parliamentary leader of the CDU party, introduced the term 'Leitkultur' into the political discourse. The notion suggests the existence of a clearly identifiable spectrum of German cultural values and proposes that foreigners who wished to live in Germany should adhere to these values. Merz's proposal triggered a wave of highly controversial comments which have been evaluated for the purpose of this paper. It draws on roughly 350 newspaper articles and interviews and aims to introduce the English-speaking reader to the complex range of arguments. The Leitkultur debate is taken as symptomatic of the current state of public discourse about foreigners and national identity in Germany.

Dissonant Belonging and the Making of Community: Native Hawaiian Claims to Selfhood and Home

In 1898 the United States illegally annexed the Hawaiian Islands over the protests of Queen Liliʽuokalani and the Hawaiian people. American hegemony has been deepened in the intervening years through a range of colonizing practices that alienate Kanaka Maoli, the indigenous people of Hawaiʽi, from their land and culture. Dissonant Belonging and the Making of Community is an exploration of contemporary Hawaiian peoplehood that reclaims indigenous conceptions of multiethnicity from colonizing narratives of nation and race. Drawing from archival holdings at the University of Hawaiʽi, Mānoa and in-depth interviews, this project offers an analysis of public and everyday discourses of nation, race, and peoplehood to trace the discursive struggle over Local identity and politics. A context-specific social formation in Hawaiʽi, “Local” is commonly understood as a multiethnic identity that has its roots in working-class, ethnic minority culture of the mid-twentieth century. However, American discourses of race and, later, multiethnicity have functioned to render invisible the indigenous roots of this social formation. Dissonant Belonging and the Making of Community reclaims these roots as an important site of indigenous resistance to American colonialism. It traces, on the one hand, the ways in which Native Hawaiian resistance has been alternately erased and appropriated. On the other hand, it explores the meanings of Local identity to Native Hawaiians and the ways in which indigenous conceptions of multiethnicity enabled a thriving community under conditions of colonialism.