U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is Canada better without Quebec?
Yes, Canada is better off without Quebec 55 41.67%
No, Canada is better off with Quebec 77 58.33%
Voters: 132. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Saint-Aimé-des-Lacs, Québec
163 posts, read 154,245 times
Reputation: 196

Advertisements

Call it what you want. Quebec is a country without independence. I don't see it as being different than if the Americans make a conquest of Mexico, does that mean Mexicans are now Americans? No, they will still be Mexicans and the land will still be the country of Mexico.



Percentages of Gaelic speakers (mono and bilingual) in Scotland in successive census years, 1891–2001. Red, 75–100% Gaelic speaking; orange, 50–74.9% Gaelic speaking; yellow, 25–49.9% Gaelic speaking; white, less than 25% Gaelic speaking. (I took this from here: Why Quebec needs independence).

The discussion about Scotland and Wales should be a warning for Quebec. Even with autonomy Scotland has become not much more than a different part of England.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:28 AM
 
1,316 posts, read 2,032,655 times
Reputation: 1132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViveLeQuebecLibre View Post
Call it what you want. Quebec is a country without independence. I don't see it as being different than if the Americans make a conquest of Mexico, does that mean Mexicans are now Americans? No, they will still be Mexicans and the land will still be the country of Mexico.
I'm sorry, VLQL, but Quebec is not a country and it won't be a country until its people vote to leave and then it exits the Canadian federation to stand on its own. End of story. Words matter. Precision matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,942 posts, read 27,343,960 times
Reputation: 8602
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViveLeQuebecLibre View Post
Call it what you want. Quebec is a country without independence. I don't see it as being different than if the Americans make a conquest of Mexico, does that mean Mexicans are now Americans? No, they will still be Mexicans and the land will still be the country of Mexico.



Percentages of Gaelic speakers (mono and bilingual) in Scotland in successive census years, 1891–2001. Red, 75–100% Gaelic speaking; orange, 50–74.9% Gaelic speaking; yellow, 25–49.9% Gaelic speaking; white, less than 25% Gaelic speaking. (I took this from here: Why Quebec needs independence).

The discussion about Scotland and Wales should be a warning for Quebec. Even with autonomy Scotland has become not much more than a different part of England.
I assume you know this, but Scottish devolution isn't really related to language loss (neither accelerating it nor stopping it). Language loss happened long before anyone starting talking about devolution and any measure of devolution or even independence isn't going to bring the language back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:30 AM
 
261 posts, read 202,997 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
For some reason we've recently had some semantic gymnastics on here about Quebec not being a true "nation" until it, as some people seem to really want it to do and even push it into doing, declares independence.

You've just demonstrated that labels don't really matter.
To be fair that's not really the argument we've had. This debate between sovereigntists and federalists, "Quebec is my country!" "No, Canada's a country, Quebec's a province!", this I agree is meaningless arguing about terminology. The real question is, should Quebec become an independent country or not. One's not going to gain any debate points by pointing that technically sovereigntists are wrong when they call Quebec their country since according to some definitions a country needs to be independent. That just isn't at all the issue. And indeed, in some contexts calling Quebec a country just makes sense. I'm not going to discuss bilateral and multilateral relations between francophone countries and sub-country entities like France, Quebec, Algeria, etc.

But what you call "semantic gymnastics" were actually a cogent argument, one that we may disagree with, but which deserves some thought. The argument is as follows: Quebec is undoubtedly a nation under the sociological definition of the term. Its residents certainly think of it as such, even federalists. I disagree with modernrebel's assertion that Quebec federalists hate Canada, most of them actually quite like it and would like to see Quebec establish closer links with the rest of the country, but they still usually recognise that Quebec's identity is national.

But what's become obvious is that this view of Canada as a multinational country just isn't shared by other Canadians. They identify culturally and emotionally as Canadian; what province they "belong" to makes no sense to them, especially since they're quite mobile, and it's like asking them if they identify with the city they live in. Yes, to a certain extent, but it doesn't go further than some of these jokey rivalries between cities. I mean, everybody hates Toronto, but other than fusion I think we all get that while there may be some annoyance at Toronto's weight in Ontario and Canada, it's basically a joke. And they apparently perceive Quebecers' identification of Quebec as their nation to be some sort of insult, as if we were sneering at Canada and all that's great about it. This is why jambo feels you need to show him that you love English Canadian culture (that is, the real Canadian culture) in order to really deserve to be Canadian, while not feeling that he needs to show any love for francophone culture (which obviously is ethnic and only for French Canadians, not "national").

And, quite obviously, Quebecers being a minority in Canada, and "only one of ten provinces", cannot force Canadians to change how they perceive their country. Canada will remain a uninational state, and as long as Quebecers still feel some cultural and emotional link to another entity (and whether or not they actually support Canada as it currently exists, and even whether they also have some cultural and emotional links to the Canadian nation as well), they will be perceived as "hating" Canada, sneering upon this great achievement of mankind, and being there only for the money. So, the argument goes, the choice is clear: either Quebecers basically assimilate and start viewing themselves as ethnic Canadians (a bit like Franco-Ontarians, and then again even Franco-Ontarians might still be a bit too assertive in claiming language rights, they should think of Canada first), or Quebec separates from Canada.

You obviously disagree with this. I'm... unconvinced. I really don't know. But I don't expect Quebec to ever become independent, so I guess we have to make do with this. Speaking of which, I found this article which is a sovereigntist reply to an book by a federalist political scientist about the need for Quebecers to "reintegrate" the Canadian family and once again work to try to build the country according to their needs. I haven't read the book, I guess maybe I should, but I can bet that many posters here would agree with the arguments in the article, especially the one that Quebecers will not change Canada because other Canadians see no need for change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Colorado
1,524 posts, read 2,262,997 times
Reputation: 2168
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclock View Post
I'm sorry, VLQL, but Quebec is not a country and it won't be a country until its people vote to leave and then it exits the Canadian federation to stand on its own. End of story. Words matter. Precision matters.

Quebec is certainly a country. Not an independent country, but a country nonetheless.

country (plural countries)
  1. (archaic) An area of land; a district, region. [from 13th c.]
  2. A set region of land having particular human occupation or agreed limits, especially inhabited by members of the same race, language speakers etc., or associated with a given person, occupation, species etc. [from 13th c.]
  3. The territory of a nation, especially an independent nation state or formerly independent nation; a political entity asserting ultimate authority over a geographical area. [from 14th c.]
  4. ​(usually preceded by “the”) A rural area, as opposed to a town or city; the countryside. [from 16th c.]
  5. Country music. [from 20th c.]
  6. (mining) The rock through which a vein runs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,942 posts, read 27,343,960 times
Reputation: 8602
In political science, Quebec would be most aptly categorized as a "stateless nation".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,585 posts, read 11,074,156 times
Reputation: 10295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
In political science, Quebec would be most aptly categorized as a "stateless nation".
Is that like a vegetarian hamburger?

It's sort of one, and it's definitely not the other, but people like to pretend that it is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,942 posts, read 27,343,960 times
Reputation: 8602
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
Is that like a vegetarian hamburger?

It's sort of one, and it's definitely not the other, but people like to pretend that it is?
I'd describe it as being in limbo: it's here now but it could go the other way at some point in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,942 posts, read 27,343,960 times
Reputation: 8602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migratory Chicken View Post

You obviously disagree with this. I'm... unconvinced. I really don't know. But I don't expect Quebec to ever become independent, so I guess we have to make do with this. .
Well, I do expect, as they say in English, things to "come to a head" eventually. Some day I expect there will either be a sea-change within Canada that will allow for greater autonomy (not necessarily out of generosity, but because people don't care, and also may wish similar autonomy for their own provinces), or Quebec will make the final push for independence. (I am a federalist for sure and do love Canada "warts and all" but as a student of both politics and history, it's sometimes hard not to envisage the hypothesis that Quebec's ultimate destiny might actually be to be an independent country.)

So I do expect one of these scenarios to play out eventually. I am not that old but I don't even know if it will be in my lifetime. The status quo, as imperfect and unsatasfying to everyone as it may be, could go on for several decades still.

But I also don't expect Quebec to go "gently into that good night" as Dylan Thomas said, and become a Canadian province like all the others. A "Big New Brunswick", a former FLQ guy turned bombastic film-maker Pierre Falardeau once said.

There might be a subtle slight erosion of Quebec's francophone identity but I don't see anything major on this front taking place without setting off some fireworks. So it's unlikely the boat will be rocked in this way. At least not deliberately.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,942 posts, read 27,343,960 times
Reputation: 8602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migratory Chicken View Post
Speaking of which, I found this article which is a sovereigntist reply to an book by a federalist political scientist about the need for Quebecers to "reintegrate" the Canadian family and once again work to try to build the country according to their needs. I haven't read the book, I guess maybe I should, but I can bet that many posters here would agree with the arguments in the article, especially the one that Quebecers will not change Canada because other Canadians see no need for change.
Sounds like what Laforest is proposing is Primary Trudeauism 2.0.

This was the idea of the coming of the so-called three wise men of Quebec, Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier and Jean Marchand, to Ottawa in the 1960s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top