Linguistic Diversity, Euthanasia, and Cultural Identity Essays

Newfoundland's Linguistic Diversity

The essay "Newfoundlandese, if You Please" by Diane Mooney draws attention to the existence of diversity in Newfoundland in the form of linguistic differences and variation. This unique form of linguistic diversity is reflected in the province's history of Irish, English, British, and French influence on its speech. Inevitably, Mooney points out how these foreign European influences through language helped create distinct cultures and societies within the province. To prove this point, she enumerates and describes the different languages spoken there.

Languages originating from East Coast Newfoundland are primarily Irish-influenced. Central Newfoundland, meanwhile, retains traces of Irish character, though it evolved its own variety that sometimes displays Irishness or a deviation from its original Irish character. The third variety — that of West Coast Newfoundland — reflects the influence of French, though Mooney also notes an effort among the people to "try to sound like mainlanders." Lastly, the Northern Peninsula has a combination of both Irish and French influences. Even though people from the Northern Peninsula are predominantly characterized by their Irish and British heritage, the region's proximity to Quebec makes its inhabitants more susceptible to code-switching from Irish to French.

Russia and Canada: Equal Shares of Misery

These comparisons of different cultures within Newfoundland highlight Mooney's central point: it is possible for distinct cultures to exist independently within one geographic space. Newfoundland's unique and diverse nature makes it a separate culture and society unto itself — one that Mooney distinctly calls "Newfoundlandese."

"Equal Share of Miseries" by Milena Tomol provides a comparison of the radical differences in the everyday lives of people in Russia and Canada. Tomol's experience as a Russian immigrant allowed her to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of living in both Socialist and Capitalist societies. As a native Russian, her life in Socialist Russia was one devoid of material wealth, sustained instead by the ideals of communal living and the principle of equality. Interestingly, she did not consider her experience of socialism a fulfilling life, but one full of miseries. Most striking of all was Tomol's parallel comparison of the two countries: both experienced different kinds of misery, yet suffered misery nonetheless.

Euthanasia and the Value of Human Life

This comparison showed how quality of life was compromised at both extremes of culture and society. Socialist Russia, aspiring to create an egalitarian society, instead promoted a socio-economic system driven by corruption and injustice. People felt miserable because they were living ideals that their Socialist leaders could not even uphold themselves. Thus, inequality was the misery Tomol experienced while living in Socialist Russia. Capitalist Canada, meanwhile, served as the antithesis of her Russian life. Where Russians could barely secure daily necessities, Canada was a society of the "have more" — people given many choices in life. However, Tomol pointed out that Canada's misery lay in the development of a "generic identity": the death of individuality in pursuit of social harmony.

Gail Deagle, in her essay "Euthanasia Reconsidered," contemplates society's growing predilection for euthanasia. In her analysis, she expresses fear that society would eventually become indifferent to euthanasia, ultimately reducing the importance of human life. To prove this point, she centers her discussion on countries and states that have legalized euthanasia, with the Netherlands as a primary example. Her thesis rests on two important arguments. First, legalization of euthanasia would result in decreased support and funding for palliative care. Second, euthanasia would inevitably shift decision-making power away from the patient and toward doctors and family members. For Deagle, both outcomes could produce a society intolerant not only of people who are sick or unable to care for themselves, but also of those who are handicapped. These eventualities are sufficient causes for alarm. A society desensitized to euthanasia inevitably becomes desensitized to the value of human life itself.

Deagle's essay argues against euthanasia by asserting that it lowers society's regard for human life. This argument may at first seem too simplistic or difficult to measure, but the author presents it in a convincing and logical manner. She shows how the legalization of euthanasia is built on two developments that together degrade the value of human life. The first is reduced support for palliative care — an essential resource for preventing patients and their families from resorting to euthanasia. The second is the independence that legalization grants not to the patient, but to his or her family, relatives, and doctors. Both developments result in a lowered valuation of human life because legalized euthanasia gives those surrounding the patient a cheaper and less burdensome alternative.