Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's a reason you don't negotiate with terrorists. Every time you do they ask for more...
I don't see anything wrong with creating a more fertile environment for Quebec within Canada.. I don't see anything wrong with doing such for other regions and people's.. Makes sense to me instead of just thinking that a one size fits all approach is going to work in a nation as large and diverse as ours. I think Brusan hit alot of nails on the head with his last post actually and I don't see it as negotiating with terrorists - its working together.. Continuous improvement and managing relationships dynamically!
I agree that the comparison of Qurebec to terrorists is unwarranted. However the message he is making proposes a question we all must ask. Will the Quebecois be satisfied with the next compromise? Nothing to date has been sufficent and the lingering unsolved issue of seperatism has proven to be terrible for the economy and stability. What can the federal government offer that will finally satisfy the seperatists? So what is the solution?
What kinda sucks is that if the issue does arise again, lots of people will go to the videotape from the 1995 referendum campaign and go over what "Canada" promised, and then proceed to analyse whether or not "Canada" delivered. That's what happened in 1995 vs. 1980 and it did a lot of harm to the Non campaign. What's also problematic about this is that every time the bar gets a little higher. If you look at what Quebec might ask for in order to sign onto the Constitution, there is a lot more there than what was in Meech in 1990. The "rest of Canada" should probably have taken the Meech conditions when they were on the table and Quebec willing to play ball with them.
As for a hypothetical third referendum, it might even be worse than 1995 for the Non side as we've got little concrete stuff to show except maybe for the change from denominational to linguistic school boards. Oh and the non-applicable recognition in name only of Quebec as a nation within Canada by Parliament. Whoop tee do.
Acajack, read the essay by François Charbonneau I linked to earlier. This one. It will not happen; the "rest of Canada" (if it even saw itself as an actual entity, which it does not) will not try to rethink the nature of this country in collaboration with Quebec. Canada is already perfect as it is.
Actually I've even seen an evolution in Quebec federalist thought since 2004, when Charbonneau said that Quebec federalists were not aware that they no longer had any partners in the rest of the country with whom to hold this discussion. Looking at the Couillard government's actions, it's clear that they are now aware of it, but don't care and would rather try to smoothen the difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada. It's as if federalists have now decided that Quebec as it is now is not Canadian, and their duty is to make it so. Slowly and imperceptibly if necessary to allow the Overton window to move.
I think it's actually a revolutionary change in Quebec federalist thought (who would have thought federalists would be the ones to label Quebec as un-Canadian?) and related to what I view as the inevitable death of Trudeauism as a viable ideology. Or at least the parts of Trudeauism according to which the French language was a living part of Canadian society, and Quebec's identity and culture were part of Canada's DNA.
I agree that the comparison of Qurebec to terrorists is unwarranted. However the message he is making proposes a question we all must ask. Will the Quebecois be satisfied with the next compromise? Nothing to date has been sufficent and the lingering unsolved issue of seperatism has proven to be terrible for the economy and stability. What can the federal government offer that will finally satisfy the seperatists? So what is the solution?
Well I think Brusan made some good points about that in his last post.. I'm interested to see what Justin Trudeau will bring to the table in his platform in next years election.. He certainly has my attention - I certainly hope he brings this issue up to the fore more than Mr Economy..
There will be a certain segment of any population who will never be happy though... You have some calling the Quebec Seperatist Movement terrorism and you'll have others where nothing within a United Canada will be good enough and the endgame is simply seperation. Don't get me wrong - the most EXTREME viewpoint i've seen here is the comment about terrorists... way overboard and uncalled for imo.
Acajack, read the essay by François Charbonneau I linked to earlier. This one. It will not happen; the "rest of Canada" (if it even saw itself as an actual entity, which it does not) will not try to rethink the nature of this country in collaboration with Quebec. Canada is already perfect as it is.
.
I don't really disagree that much. I wasn't saying that I expect "an offer that Quebec can't refuse" to come down the pike, but you have to admit that if we have a Referendum III, all bets are off and the PQ will rub the Non side's nose in all of that like you wouldn't believe.
I agree that the comparison of Qurebec to terrorists is unwarranted. However the message he is making proposes a question we all must ask. Will the Quebecois be satisfied with the next compromise? Nothing to date has been sufficent and the lingering unsolved issue of seperatism has proven to be terrible for the economy and stability. What can the federal government offer that will finally satisfy the seperatists? So what is the solution?
I don't think it's about satisfying the separatists. I don't think most of them will ever be satisfied until Quebec has its seat at the UN.
It's about giving Quebec federalists sufficient ammunition to address the traditional separatist beefs. They frankly didn't have much to work with in 1995 and look at what (almost) happened.
At the moment it appears as though it's a dead issue but there is a whole bunch of stuff that will come out of the woodwork if ever we get into another independence referendum campaign.
Something like ''Meech plus" (eg the Meech Lake accord which some updating to reflect 21st century realities) leading to greater autonomy for Quebec in the areas that are important to it, would possibly relegate the separatist movement to the 15-25% support range, instead of the 35-45% range that is has tended to dwell in, and which is always dangerously within striking range of 50%+1 depending on the electorate's mood.
Perhaps a more specific word to use would be ethnos. The idea of a German people has existed at least since medieval times, after the breakup of the Frankish Empire and the rise of Otto I. Not only was there the medieval Kingdom of Germany (the First Reich or Holy Roman Empire), but in the writings of people from this time through the renaissance and modern period we see a clear indication that an inhabitant of Saxony and an inhabitant of Hesse both saw themselves as belonging to the same German ethnos, or nation. Similarly the ancient Ionian inhabitants of Asia Minor under Persian rule still saw themselves as Greeks, regardless of the fact that they were part of the Persian political entity.
Maybe so. But I'm curious to know how, for example, one defines an Italian. Or how one defined an Italian in the 19th century, when the country obtained its political unity. There was an idea of the Italian nation. But did it include residents of the Italian peninsula (let alone Sardinia and Sicily) who natively speak a Romance language quite different from Standard Italian? I'd wager it certainly did not at the time include German speakers of South Tyrol, despite them today being undeniably Italian.
Quote:
Of course to bring 19th century nationalism to modern Quebec would entail delusions of grandeur, such as the annexation of the Maritime provinces, Ontario, and even Sasketchewan, and even the revival if New France.
Possibly in the sense that in the 19th century, French Canadian nationalism encompassed all French speakers of Canada, and even Franco-Americans of places like Maine and Massachusetts. But I don't think it was a nation tied to a specific territory. It defined itself as the nation of a minority people, after all.
The modern Quebec nation is tied to the territory of Quebec, but it also does not include francophones from other parts of Canada. Of course they can become part of the Quebec nation if they want to (as Acajack did for example).
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit
I was speaking of language and the idea that Canadians need to defend themselves against being mistaken for Americans and Mexicans and Quebekers do not.
I believe the point is that if anglophone Canadians feel the need to distinguish themselves from Americans, it's for their own benefit. They suspect that there isn't much of a difference between them and Americans, so they'll dwell on what might otherwise seem to be minor details. A francophone Quebecer (or a Mexican) who speaks fluent English might be confused for an American if they manage to hide their accent, but they will not view being confused for American as a threat to their identity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Interesting tidbit: 15% of anglophones in Quebec City speak only English.
That's amazingly high. I'd assume most of them are probably recent arrivals from elsewhere in Canada though, especially given that Quebec City has a relatively low proportion of anglophones.
Bad word choice on mine, as in the infinite threads about Quebec, I've never been anything but generally supportive of Quebec's position in Canada.
My comment was meant that there's no end to the giving. If Canada gave Quebec everything they wanted, carte blanche, no strings, no hassle, but the conversation is over. There is going to be more discussions down the road looking for more because giving everything on the list to some people means the list wasn't big enough.
It will always be that way. Quebec feels wronged, and on an emotional level that will never be healed regardless of the money or power devolved to Quebec within Confederation.
Just as an aside, while you were all clutching your pearls in horror, if the FLQ wasn't a terrorist organization that committed bombings and assassination in the name of Quebec Independence, what exactly makes a terrorist?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
