If I had to list my favourite things/activities on earth, it would be:

• Dogs;
• Sports;
• Reading;
• Anything that smells good;
• Laying on my bed

I registered for the language program at Dawson when I realized I enjoyed learning languages in my spare time and that I had at least three or four dictionaries from different languages in my room. I also realized that I loved being surrounded by people who have a different culture than mine, because they always make me discover new things and give me another point of view on life.

My goal when I die is to have learn/mastered:

• Italian;
• Spanish;
• Portuguese:
• German;
• Mandarin;
• Japanese;
• Korean;
• Arabic;
• ... and maybe more :)

Alright, I think I'm done presenting myself,

ciao!

It's an article I read last semester when I was doing a research on grammar and gender and I stumbled upon this article. It explores the semantic shifts of certain words in Korean, Japanese and Chinese, giving them an additional definition to those words. Using this new definition, it formed a negative and sexual connotation to the words employed. Thus, words whose gender is related to female (even though those languages do not have gender as a part of their grammar) tend to follow a sexual and objectified connotation, whereas men stay the same, or even gain a higher prestige.

Thus, the way we use those words, using the sexual definition, might explain why women are still sexually objectified and discriminated in those languages. It forces speakers to perceive women as arousing, attractive and submissive objects, therefore not at the same level as men.

The article also points out some characters that still employ the female radical "nü" in negative words, such a jealousy, rape, evil, and so on. While it is nebulous on why the female radical might be related to those significance, it influences people who are able to read to associate women with those words.

** As I chose my topic to be on racism, gender discrimination shall not be analyzed on this blog, but feel feel to use this source.

Source 4.1 & 4.2

Hello!

Since I noticed that a lot of the sources I found were about the symbolic of colors and connotation, I wanted to have a definition of what are semantics and pragmatism, which I think is relevant to my research. Therefore, I've chosen a book we've used in the past: The Study of Language. It has definition and I hope I can understand a bit more how semantics and pragmatism function in language, and how it can relate to linguistic relativity and discrimination.

1) Semantics

So this is the definition according to Yule is the "... description of the widely accepted objective or factual meaning of words and not their subjective or personal meaning" (125).

So semantic refers to the meaning of words. But there is different meanings in semantics.

Referential meaning: literal use of a word, definition in dictionaries

Associative meaning: what other words with associate with this word

Emotive meaning: the feeling we associate with a word

I think this part of the chapter about semantics is useful and links to my topic, because there is a dissonance between the referential, associative and emotional meanings of the n-word and the word "Black".

2) Pragmatism

According to the book, pragmatism is the context in which a specific meaning of a word is used in language.

Physical context: location where we encounter words and phrases. Yule gives the example of the word BANK on a building. That is understood to be the financial institution and not a hospital.

Linguistic context: Yule explains that the linguistic context is the co-text, by which we will understand by implying. An example I can think of is when someone says "Finish your plate". It does not mean to eat the plate you've been using, but it is implied that you need to finish the food that is in your plate.

Overall, I think that the doll test uses the linguistic context and the associative meaning when they show the dolls to the children. Children need to associate a doll to "pretty", "ugly", "bad", "good", etc. Therefore, it is implied that there is a polarization. Even though I am not sure about this affirmation, this source was still very helpful to understand a bit more about how words can have different meanings.

Source 5

Hello!

Today, I wanted to analyze a bit more what linguistic relativity means, and how it can affect how we think. I have another source (Mooney & Evans) discussing a similar angle, but I wanted to know if it confirmed what my first source said.

This source, built up from writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf and other linguists, goes deeper into the topic of how language shapes the way we think and analyze the world surrounding us. The source comes from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The chapter of this book I've decided to discuss is about how language affects your perception of reality.

For instance, there is a quote that explains well this phenomenon:

• "The term ‘ space, ’ for instance, does not and CANNOT mean the same thing to a psychologist as to a physicist. Even if psychologists should firmly resolve, come hell or high water, to use “ space ” only with the physicist ’ s meaning, they could not do so, any more than Englishmen could use in English the word ‘ sentiment ’ in the meanings which the similarly spelled but functionally different French utterance le sentiment has in its native French" (340).

To relate this quote to my topic, this example of the word "space" can be compared in the use of the n-word. As it means an insult when it is said from a person outside of the community, it becomes a word of camaraderie when it is used within the community. Therefore, words do not share the same meaning from a person to another, according to their language, gender, ethnicity or social status (Thank you, Leila Roiter, I love you). As the source uses a cross-linguistic analysis, it is more complex to convey my opinion. But the word foot can mean different things, too. For a someone working in a health field, it means a part of the body, whereas in the construction industry, it represents a unit of measurement.

Other quotes that I found quite useful:

• "To anticipate the text, “ thinking in a language ” does not necessarily have to use WORDS. An uncultivated Choctaw can as easily as the most skilled litterateur contrast the tenses or the genders of two experiences, though he has never heard of any WORDS like “ tense ” or “ gender ” for such contrasts. Much thinking never brings in words at all, but manipulates whole paradigms, word-classes, and such grammatical orders “ behind ” or “ above ” the focus of personal consciousness" (346)*.

• "And every language is a vast pattern-system, different from others, in which are culturally ordained the forms and categories by which the personality not only communicates, but also analyzes nature, notices or neglects types of relationship and phenomena, channels his reasoning, and builds the house of his consciousness" (346-347).

What I really liked from those two quotes is that the first one confirms that even if the language does not use such things as tenses of gender (like in Chinese, for instance) as part its grammatical system, but it simply means that we do not have to think with words to understand a concept of tense or gender. People can identify that big, white things falling from the sky are snowflakes, even if they do not have a complex vocabulary around the phenomenon.

The second quote is very interesting, because it acknowledges the fact that we, as humans, will analyze situations, notice them or neglect them. Therefore, in case of discrimination, we can notice it and decide not to acknowledge it. We might neglect people because of the way we have been thought to think about them, especially when speakers of a certain language create slurs and insults as direct aggression against a community. Then, there is more subtle ways, much more insidious, to convey the way we feel about certain things or people. Again, words like "Black" or "White", by the way we use them as symbolic, might explain why the fear and hatred against people of color developed.

Source 3

This research conducted by Caldwell analyzes the connotations of black and white. While 1969 is a bit old, I believe that it is still relevant because the connotations are pretty much the same nowadays. We associate black with negative features and white with more positive features.

I do believe that this research is even more interesting because of its scientific and psychological approaches. We can actually refer to data. However, the test might need to be conducted again to see if the conception of black and white has changed.

The results are:

"I. Statistical analysis of ranked median adjective ratings on the two scales yielded a Spearman Rank-Difference correlation of .82 (p < .001).

2. Subsequent replication with two independent groups of west coast college students yielded r5 = .86 (p < .001) between ratings of the forty adjectives on the two scales.

3. A comparison of 9th grade and college students ratings of each adjective on the Social Desirability scale yielded r5 = .97, and r5 = .95 for the Black-White scale comparison.

4. Results from further studies using Osgood's traditional SD dimensions of Evaluative Potency, and Activity for rating the concepts Black, White, Socially Desirable, Socially Undesirable, Sincere and Liar supported the hypothesis that White would receive more favorable ratings than Black. Also, SD profiles based on ratings of Black and White by two independent college groups showed a high degree of correspondence.

5. Data from an eastern college student group replicated results from the west coast" (Caldwell & al 3).

Graphics show the correlation of the symbolic of black and white (plus their associative meanings) according to 9th graders and college students. Results have shown that the correlation is less evident on younger children, but becomes more definite with college students. The correlation with socially desirable traits with those two colors correlates even more with "black=bad" and "white=good".

This research also adds that human's fear of darkness might also explain why humans tend to be scared of people of color. Yet this is just an hypothesis, and has not background research, but it is a new point of view on the big question on racism.

If we compare it to the, more primitive and much more simpler, doll test, we can observe that children and college students do tend to associate good with white and bad with black, even in 2018. While it seems to slowly shift, prejudices are still present.

Sources 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 & 6.4

During the 40s, psychologist researches were done to show the effect of segregation in school on children. They called it the "Doll Test", which says it all in its title: they display two doll: one of color, and one white.

This test was conducted to show the effect of racism on people's mind, more specifically, on children.

This Youtube video is very interesting, because we can actually witness children being influenced by social factors and defining the color "white" as "good" and "pretty", whereas the color "black" is associated with "ugly" and "bad" or even "evil". This might explain why society has difficulty to get rid of discrimation against people of color, because the way we advertise, communicate and express ourselves in regards of racism is still filled with biases in favor of caucasians.

It is heartbreaking to see, because all the children interviewed are tanned or mixed, and they cannot consider themselves beautiful or pretty because of beauty standards insufflated to them at such a young age. The langguage we use, our body language, our advertisement with dolls (as it is the case in the video), favors a part of society, while it puts another chunk of society to fade into the background.

Discrimination is still present, it is just not as assertive as it was. It has found some more incidious ways to infiltrate our minds, though language.

I find this source relevant, because other videos suggest that racism is indeed still conveyed through communication.

However, is that test still relevant nowadays?

Here is another video about the Doll Test, conducted on Italian children. The results are essentially the same, where children are slowly realizing that they are perpetuating and following the behavior and the prejudices they experienced. Children realizing that they are on the "bad" side.

The video, like the first one, shows similar results: "Black" is "bad", "white" is "good".

More recently, the Doll Test was conducted again in 2018, to see if mentalities have changed in regards of racism.

"I do not want to pick extremes"

"I tend to gravitate towards people who are similar to me"

"People with lighter skin tend to get treated better"

Which one would you trust?

*points at lighter shade*

Which one is the most dangerous?

*points at darkest shade*

The results were similar to before, confirming that there is still prejudices against people of color. It has shifted a little, but the perception that caucasians are the most previliged remains the same.

Those videos are really fundamental to my reseach, because it shows that discrimation it is indeed transmitted through language. And if the discrimination is not as visible as it was before, it does exist.

Now, see for yourself, and reflect on how you would answer to these questions...

The last video is the parents' reactions of their children doing the doll test. Again, the results are the same, but the children selected are at extreme point of view, which makes the video a bit more chocking.

The results of this video are:

• white children have a white bias (identifying the color that resemble them most are the smartest, prettiest and most trustworthy kind, while they associate darker skin tone with negative attributes)

The video adds a little bit of statistic, too:

Younger white children:

• 76% associated "dumb" to the 2 darkest shades
• 66% associated "ugly" to the 2 darkest shades
• 66% associated the color most children do not like with the 2 darkest shades

Older white children:

• 59% and more pointed towards the 2 darkest shades when asked who was the "bad" child

Source 7

The article starts off with the Supreme Court decision in the United-States in 1954 to put a stop to segregation, because scientific researches had discovered that the "separate, but equal" was a false statement.

The Court has stated: "... to separate [children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone" (299).

Therefore, segregation and their motto "separate, but equal" have made children develop and internalize racist messages the language used to convey its discrimination (in case of segregation).

From the famous doll test (shown in the four videos earlier in my blog), some results conclude:

• "A majority of children identified a brown doll as looking like them, but chose a white doll to play with, as the nice one, and as the one with a nice color. The Clarks concluded that the children had internalized society's racist messages and thus suffered from wounded self-esteem" (299).
• "The psychological literature terms this finding "white preference behavior" and "race dissonance." Concluding that African American children preferred whiteness and denigrated blackness..." (307).

By identifying to be a black doll, yet choosing to play with the white doll because it fits the american society's standard of what is "good", "desirable", "pretty" and ultimately what society prefers, it clearly shows that children are indeed affected by such connotation and actions taken to privilege white children.

The author also notes that similar tests have been conducted "... to advocate policies on multiculturalism, self-segregation, affirmative action, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, resegregation, and the racial achievement gap" (299).

Tests like those are used in multiple spheres and multiple fields researching on racial preferences and prejudices. The fact that so many researches are conducted also prove that this is a contemporary issue that did and still does affect generations to this day. It might change from a decade to another, bu it shows that skin color and society's message of what is good or bad is internalized and even if it does not affect the self-esteem, it has an impact on the racial identity.

To relate to my topic, language does have an effect on one's perception on the world. It might be more subtle, but it creates an awareness on the fact that their racial identity might not be the one that is favored by society's majority.

... BbbBbuuuUuuUuUTtT... !

We must be aware that some of those tests' results are biased.

But for good reasons.

It shows that some people are not ashamed of their racial identity, and therefore they do not abide to racial discriminatory remarks sent by society (especially in post-segregation times).

Therefore, the first tests were to prove that due to the segregation, children have internalized racist messages, having sometimes an impact on their self-esteem. But, due to shifts in racial politics, they tend have a problem with the assertion of their identity.

It is a problem of identity, and not of self-esteem.

As expressed here:

• "...white preference behavior indicates that African American children idealize whiteness, denigrate blackness, and therefore disavow their racial identity. Black preference behavior indicates a healthy self; whereas white preference behavior is pathological. To these researchers, the children who exhibit white preference behavior experience a horrible self-division that can only be remedied by, in historical order, integration, black militancy, and multicultural education" (301).

I find this quote interesting (and very well put together), because it really explains how the white bias when it applies to a community that cannot/partially identify with it is not a healthy behavior. It demands people from the non-desirable part of society to denigrates itself. While being proud of who we are and going out of the mainstream preference is a sign that racial bias is conveyed in language.

• "... the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which mounted the legal campaign against segregation of the late '40s and early '50s that culminated in Brown, first challenged segregated education on the basis that states did not provide equal resources for children of both races. The group won several equalization orders in lower courts on grounds that facilities, curricula, and financial expenditures for black schools were inferior to those for white schools in the same district" (305).

Since the state so proudly boasted that even if people of color and white people were separate, they received an equal education. Yet, it showed that it was not the case. Thus, psychologist have decided to investigate to see if children from those schools were affected by such inequalities.

The doll test has nowadays a symbolism of social inequality, white privilege and internalization of racial prejudices.

While it seems that it does not affect self-esteem, it does have an impact. The use of this statement "separate, but equal" is simply a way to disregard inequalities within american society. Social preferences have made segregation discriminatory. Therefore, the language used does indeed convey traces of discrimination and prejudices against the black community in the United-States.

Source 8

Now, a more evident source of discrimination and aggressiveness are insults and slurs against a certain group of people.

The N-word (an euphemism to avoid using the slur) has such a negative connotation (especially when used as an actual insult) because of its horrifying history. It is a very direct way to assert our belief that black people are inferior to white people. Even pronouncing the the N-word for a white person is shocking because of how it has been used in the past by white people.

How ever, in pop culture and in more recent years, the N-word has seemed to be reclaimed by the community to express a sense of fraternity and camaraderie (Allan compares it the word mate in Australia).

This article, in particular, analyzes how the N-word is been used in the famous movie "Pulp Fiction".

It would be important to find another source explaining the shifting of connotation of the N-word.

The SpringerPlus journal is peer-reviewed, and Keith Allan has wrote many peer-reviewed articles and books about pragmatism, semantics and the censoring in language.

His arguments:

• Political correctness: The use of N-word is an euphemism and we should things by what they are.
• Intention: If the word is not meant to be offensive, they it is ok to use it.
• Etymology: The word nigger comes from Latin "dark, black, unlucky", which might explains how the connotation followed through the centuries. Because in Vulgar Latin, the same word was referring to a black person.
• Pulp Fiction: 8/18 of the uses are analyzed in this article by the means of pragmatism. Was it more used as a slur? or as camaraderie? In the movie, it is used mostly as a slur, but also as its other meaning of "brother" or "mate".

My point of view

While I think white people should not use this term because of its pejorative connotation, I believe black people are ought to use it as a meliorative term. If we follow his logic, we could call anyone a bitch if we don't mean it as an insult, and we could call a gay person faggot if we don't mean it. I think it is more empowering for black people to use the N-word as a sign of camaraderie than white people starting to use it for everyone. I think it has more positive influence for a black person to use it.

Source 9

"Redskins"

• "Redskin is a problem. It is an outdated reference to an American Indian. It is best regarded as a racial slur on par with other denigrating terms" (1)

As the author noted, the insult is a problem because it is referring to the skin color to a single community, which have been through discrimination, violence and hate crime in the past. Therefore, diminishing and undermining the whole community who already suffered is morally incorrect and unacceptable.

This work is therefore meant to explains and educate people on the matter, and spread awareness on the problematic with the Redskins Football team.

(I also feel that we often brush it off when it concerns First Nation people, as if it was a part of history that we are trying to suppress).

As a big fan of American Football and a player, it is a sport that supports team work, collective effort, perseverance, resilience, strength and precision.

Thus, it is only fair to celebrate other communities who went through hardships and wish to move forward from a violent past. And not highlight their ignorance of the heritage of a word by naming a team with it.

You would not see a team being called "Bitches of Ohio", "Queers of New York" or "Ching Chong from China".

The urge to make people understand that it is indeed a harmful word is startling.

Origins

There are two hypothesis by which the Redskin term came into use.

1) From the tribes themselves, and for their fondness of red makeup, and not the color of their skin.

2) It came about when the colonizers arrived, associating the tribes with their skin color.

• "He dates the initial usage to 1769 in a private conversation recorded in the French plural form as peaux rouges" (14).

Then, the author follows by saying that if at first the relationships between the French colonizers and the tribes were using the term red skin to describe the makeup, or as a sign of pride, it quickly shifted toward the simple skin color of a Native American.

And as time went by, more and more people started to give an importance to skin color, whether it was brown, red, white or black.

And to prove that the term is indeed a slur, we do not tend to use this term to address someone normally, like someone would not address their black friends as "negro" like that in the street. If we tend to avoid the use of a word because we use it when we are mad, angry, racist... it is a slur.

If someone has been called a redskin when they were bullied, it is a slur.

Evolution in the dictionary

• "Merriam- Webster’s dictionaries offer a nice illustration.

1890: North American Indian — so called from the color of their skin

1898: A North American Indian — often contemptuous (Collegiate)

1910: “Often contemptuous” dropped

1961: Usually taken to be offensive (New International, 3rd ed.)

1983: “usu. taken to be offensive” (Collegiate, 9th ed.)

2003: “usually offensive” (Collegiate, 11th ed.)" (19).

As we can observe, it is indeed a way people address the skin color of someone, and as the time passed by, the more its meaning was associated with an offensive use.

The word is nowadays defined as being an epithet

Discussions & Problematic

• "Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. . . . The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone" (5).

Like I explained earlier on, if it was about the black community (which got a lot of attention because of its political movements and charismatic leaders), I'm pretty sure the backlash would have been much more damaging to the person who decided to use a slur to name an American Football team who have been fired.

• "Most visibly, it remains the moniker of the Washington professional football team, long anchoring its brand and traditions. This should unsettle us. The word has deep connections to the history of anti- Indian violence, marked by ethnic cleansing, dispossession, and displacement" (1).

The word has a deeply rooted connection with its historical past, which is filled with violence, injustice and unresolved issues that were simply addressed with a meek apology from governments.

Dawson is, for instance, a territory of a First Nation that were displaced from their territory to the profit of colonizer.

Therefore, being respectful to a community is a simple step to take. The refusal to acknowledge the word as an insult is the refusal to acknowledge the discrimination of a community, its past, its enslavement, its suffering and its racial profiling.

• "As Amanda Blackhorse, lead plaintiff in a current legal challenge, notes, “Native American people have been targeted for their race, their land, and their resources. So when the dominant culture believes they are superior to the indigenous population they will dehumanize and dominate us for their own good. This includes the dehumanization of our entire being, especially our identity.”17" (8-9).

The direct quote is, to my opinion, what I am trying to convey. Denying the past of a whole community will not resolve any of contemporary issues. It will only postponed well deserved respect, equal treatment and acknowledgement of historical events.

To summarize everything up,

Please change the name.

It is offensive and oblivious to the suffering of a whole community.

It is discriminatory language.

Source 10

Welcome again!

To continue with articles that discuss the importance of eliminating the use of discriminatory language, insults playing a BIG part in it.

And to identify the connotation of insults, you need to contextualize them (pragmatism) and add all the variables to really understand how the usage is indeed harmful and disrespectful.

1) Adjectives used/ associated with the word

(We can always refer to an article I analyzed earlier that dissect the connotation of "Black" and "white" according to the use of adjective)

2) How it was said/ the context (tone, body language)

3) Actors implied in the exchange (who was the sender and the receiver)

So, we need to decode the sender's encoded message to determine if the message is discriminatory language.

The author explains that insults are harmful and do not fall into the protection of the First Amendment in the United-States.

While the United-Stated do authorize freedom of speech, it is restricted in some ways to ensure the non-violation of rights and freedoms of its citizens.

First and foremost, I wanted us to take a look on the definition of the words "slur", "insult" and "epithet", which is beautifully explained in the footnotes:

"8. A slur is an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo. WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1089 (1979). The purpose of a slur is to create a shaming or degrading effect or to stigmatize a person. Id. An insult is the act of attacking, or a gross indignity or affront to, a person's dignity. Id. at 594. An epithet is a disparaging or abusive word or phrase that is used in place of the name of a person or thing" (560).

If we summarize, a slur is meant to stigmatize with insulting words and phrases. An insult is to attack one's dignity with offensive words and/or phrases. An epithet is to replace one's name, object with offensive and abusive words and/or phrases.

• ""Nigger" is not the only pejorative term for blacks.47 There are also words referring to other ethnic minorities designed to have the same debilitating effect as "nigger," such as "beaner," "camel jockey," "chintz," "frog," "gandhi," "gook," "guinea," "jap," "kike," "spic," and "wop."" (567).

Insults abound, and the human imagination will continue to create one to replace the other that was just banned. But it is important to constantly education, sensitize and raise awareness that is this hateful speech and that is must be condemned.

• "This speech is as valueless to society as obscenity and other categories of unprotected speech. Racial slurs do not contribute to democracy or to the marketplace of ideas that the first amendment preserves. As one author has stated: "categorizing racial defamation as speech . . . confuse[s] form with substance . . . . [R]acial defamation frequently resembles political speech. However, one need scratch barely beneath its surface... to recognize that group libel offers no ideas, opinions, or proposals of substance or merit." This language is an instrument that causes grievous harm to the victim, the actor involved, and to society at large." (561)

I find it interesting that the author qualifies insults as "a valueless speech", because insults only fuel the hatred and build up tension between different communities.

If insults are often associated with political speech, the author does refutes by saying that racist insults are in no way contributing or engaging into an issue, if not highlighting that there is an issue to address and resolve in society. In other words, racist insults only show an aggressive society and that it highlights the urge of fighting this aggression. Therefore, insults are not political, they are unwanted, harmful, disrespectful and valueless.

The author first introduces the back story of slavery in the United-States, mentioning the Secession War and later the Jim Crow law, then addresses a case (Plessy vs. Fergusson) that was discussed earlier on the blog (concerning the Doll Tests), that was meant to show that "separate, but equal" was an oppressing doctrine.

The author continues and list all the damages insults, slurs and epithet cause to the victim, and proves that insults perpetrate racism.

Then, a rather provocative example is shown to prove that linguistic relativity and discriminatory language can have the power to shape the thoughts of an entire nation to turn against an individual, community, group or even another nation and push them to commit hateful crimes.

• "Fourth, racial insults tend to perpetuate rather than dispel racial prejudice in society.7 2 These terms contribute to the diffusion of prejudice in society.73 Racial insults appeal to the emotions of people, and thus can be extremely dangerous. Nazi Germany provides an example of how rational people can be influenced greatly by emotion when derogatory terms are used to promote divisiveness in the society" (570).

If we reflect closely on the matter, and by the effect of the crowd, people are ought to follow society's mindset, especially during hard times.

If right now, racist insults do not seem harmful, they can lead, in desperate times to make horrible decisions that will traumatize generations to come.

So this is the last entry on this blog...

Throughout this semester, I learned that choosing I topic that I love will fuel my motivation. I felt like I was able to be consistent and engage myself on this blog. If the topic I chose was about discrimination, I think that it is mainly because of my English course (Banned Books), in which we discussed that most challenged books in the 21st century have content that advocates defending discrimination, especially against people of color and LGBTQ+ community. Even if it isn't directly challenged for having a gay character or denouncing cops brutality against people of color, they find motives to cover up the discrimination and censor people who are trying to change mentality.

And it made me wonder if language had its role to play in this.

I really liked this research, and it made me realize that language has so much power on people and how we perceive people.

I just hope that people will be interested in this topic as well, and I think that Lauriane's topic is so personal and important that I really hope people will also go and read about Native languages.

For all my classmates in the Language Program: keep dreaming and dream big!

On this note,

Farewell! :)