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.
Still with the topic of Quebec being virtually identical culturally to the rest of Canada and the U.S., please advise as to whether this would be perfectly acceptable for Saturday or Sunday morning cartoons, on a mainstream over the air TV channel, in Canada outside Quebec and USA.
Still with the topic of Quebec being virtually identical culturally to the rest of Canada and the U.S., please advise as to whether this would be perfectly acceptable for Saturday or Sunday morning cartoons, on a mainstream over the air TV channel, in Canada outside Quebec and USA.
Acajack, please clarify what in this video you believe would be objectionable by anglo North American standards, since I honestly can see it going in a few different directions. Is it the portrayal of black Africans which might be considered stereotypical? Is it the mention of cannibalism (by the witch, of course, who I assume is the villain), which again in an African context may be considered an insensitive stereotype? Is it the mother's uncovered breasts? It could even be that the mother telling Kirikou to give birth to himself and then wash himself propagates stereotypes of black women being bad mothers!
As for me, I would say that to find cultural differences between francophone Quebecers and other North Americans, we don't need to go to different attitudes toward stereotypes and political correctness. Especially since in my experience Quebec is a fairly politically correct society as well. To me, the main difference is the following one: francophone Quebecers are very sensitive to the failings of their society and tend to believe that things are worse in Quebec than everywhere else in the world, be it from an economic, cultural or moral standpoint. In Quebec media you have endless debates about whether Quebecers are racist, whether Quebecers speak French "correctly", maybe even whether Quebec "deserves" to exist as a society, and rarely any mention that what are seen as failings of Quebec society may very well be prevalent in most other societies as well, or not even failings at all. And yet, even though a good number if not the majority of francophone Quebecers are convinced we are worse than everybody else, they still believe themselves to be part of the rare few who realise this, and will point out to for example the Fête nationale celebrations as evidence that other Quebecers are way too proud.
Anglo North Americans... well, Americans are very famous for their sense of exceptionalism, and anglophone Canadians, while less famous for this, are quite obviously convinced that their society has managed to solve most of the vices that have plagued humanity for ages, from bigotry to poverty. And that's not a difference that's disappearing, what with Canadians apparently becoming only prouder and prouder of themselves. This even leads to the paradoxical phenomenon of some young francophone Quebecers being simultaneously ashamed to be Quebecers and proud to be Canadians. They're only exhibiting the dominant ethos of both societies they belong to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guytar1220
Mme Bombardier is probably the most opposite of Mike Ward's thinking and sens of humour spectrum...I would not go as far as Bombardier, but I tend to believe that, Ward's type of humour (words) supports mediocrity and illiteracy, especially for those who are vulnerable to it. I have nothing scientific to support my thoughts on this, but I ear a lot of strange comments, that often comes directly from either Ward's or others "humorists" or radioX hosts, which end up being most of the time sexist, crude, denuded from sensitivity, full of sophisms and huge ones BTW, etc.
I'm not a fan of so-called "trash radio", but my point of view is that what they propagate is not an ideology in itself, but rather a reaction to what is perceived as a society where freedom is being smothered by political correctness. I'm not saying I agree with this, but I think it's important to understand how these people feel and what it means.
As for Denise Bombardier, she clearly exhibits the tendency of Quebecers to fixate on one society (in her case, France) as Quebec society's absolute superior in everything, cherry-picking examples to prove their unassailable belief. I'd probably insult her if I described her as a typical Quebecer, but to me she obviously is. In this regard at least.
Anglo North Americans... well, Americans are very famous for their sense of exceptionalism, and anglophone Canadians, while less famous for this, are quite obviously convinced that their society has managed to solve most of the vices that have plagued humanity for ages, from bigotry to poverty. And that's not a difference that's disappearing, what with Canadians apparently becoming only prouder and prouder of themselves.
.
Like where do you come to this conclusion... I suppose what is obvious is clear only in the lens of an individual! At best it is a gross generalization and worst its just plain ignorant.. Its comments like this as an Anglo-Canadian that just make me go
I'm sorry fusion2, what I meant to say of course is that Canadians are a very humble people. Very, very humble, in fact we are the humblest people in the history of the universe!
I know this supposed Canadian inferiority complex is frequently mentioned here, and I am willing to entertain the possibility that what I perceive as Canadian brashness and overt pride may be a reaction to a not fully self-admitted sense of inferiority toward Americans. Look at this current thread. American asks why, since they arrived in Canada (two days ago) three people have felt the need to tell them that Canada is better than the US. This does not surprise me in the slightest. It seems to be a Canadian obsession, and I will admit that francophone Quebecers, even nationalists, are not immune to it. (Though Quebec anti-Americanism is somewhat different from Canadian anti-Americanism.) Yet, a lot of Canadian posters there (including you, apparently) blame American arrogance for how the OP has been received. On page 2 Zoisite suggests they refrain from talking about politics or religion, about the US, or even from mentioning that they're American if they want to be well-received in Canada. Apparently Canadians "don't want to know about that." That's fairly harsh; what happened to being interested in where your guests come from and what they have to say? Later lucknow directly says that he believes Canada to be superior to the US.
So yeah, I am willing to consider that what appears to be Canadian pride comes from pretending to be totally different from what Canadians perceive the US's faults to be, and so it's in this regard a sort of extension of a sense of inferiority. I'm reminded of Acajack's claim that of the people who've told him that "nobody is racist around here", 90% have been white, English-speaking Canadians. That's also hardly surprising. Canadians want their country to be perceived as the opposite of racism, because they perceive the US to be a country still struggling with a legacy of racism. But just imagine how this claim sounds to someone from the outside, for example, to a francophone Quebecer who lives in a society where we're constantly ripping our shirts off stressing over whether we're racist or not? Where (especially if we're the slightest bit nationalist) we need to ask ourselves whether we were also thinking of anglophones and ethnic minorities every time we talked about "nous"? It sounds like English Canadians just get to claim their greatness without doing any effort, while we francophones in Quebec need to constantly keep watch upon ourselves in order to stop us from falling into barbarity. So yeah, brashness and overt pride.
To continue my reply to fusion2, I will once again link to this article by François Charbonneau about the new Canadian nationalism. Yeah, it's in French, a language you cannot read (though you somehow claim that if you had the power, you'd do a totally absurd thing like require knowledge of French in order for anglophone high-school students everywhere in Canada to obtain their diploma! ), but just run it through Google Translate and keep in mind that when Charbonneau talks about "the rock" (or in the original French, "le roc"), he doesn't mean a pro wrestler, a Michael Bay movie, or Gibraltar, but rather the Rest of Canada. It's very interesting and you should really read it if you want to understand how Canadian pride is perceived by people from the outside. I especially want to focus on two parts.
What are these values that feed Canadian national pride? The Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future (Spicer commission, 1991) identified a few, still pertinent today: equality and justice in a democratic society, strong belief in the importance of dialogue and consultation, tolerance, diversity, compassion, generosity, love for Canada's natural beauty and, finally, working towards freedom, peace and non-violent change. On first look, we may wonder what is distinctly Canadian in these values. Reading the Forum's report, we understand that they only acquire this meaning through Canadians' perception of what distinguishes them from Americans. Compassion refers to the free and universal health system which is lacking in the United States; generosity means the social safety net; tolerance and diversity, the cultural mosaic which would be preferable to the American melting pot, etc. Notwithstanding the origin of these values, Canadians wholly recognise themselves in them and believe their being shared by all Canadians would ensure national unity.
So according to Charbonneau, it is clear that Canadian nationalism (with the feelings of pride that come from it) is a consequence of the desire to distinguish oneself from the United States, and more precisely from the belief in the idea that Canadian society has solved the problems of American society. And note that he points out that Canadians believe that if all Canadians would share these values (which obviously are fairly vague and largely unobjectionable values, or as he says, not even distinctly Canadian), then national unity would be ensured. Corollary: if national unity is not ensured, it is that not all Canadians believe in these values. This is relevant for this thread, whose title is still "Is Quebec Independence a Legitimate Movement?"
Later in the article, describing the consequences of this new Canadian nationalism:
And so now, the simple fact of being Canadian causes you to be tolerant, open to diversity and multiculturalism, etc. Canadians are perfectly convinced that they represent the very model of achieved humanity and that they live in the greatest country in the world. They recognise themselves as such, without (and there lies the problem) having to do any effort toward real openness. For example, we find perfectly contemptible that Quebec forces new Quebecers studying in public schools to learn French, without wondering why all immigrants to the ROC "choose" to learn English. We celebrate the wealth of Canadian culture, but never do we hear even one French-language song on private radio in the ROC. We swell up with pride about bilingualism in big ceremonies, but never has the assimilation rate been so high in francophone communities in Canada. We do not see any contradiction in the fact that Don Cherry, an obviously bigoted moron, is celebrated by millions of Canadians without there being any doubt (in his fans' minds) about the racist character of his speech. Caricaturing a little, we might almost say that since, naturally, a real Canadian cannot be intolerant, Cherry's comments must be an especially clever form of humour. Only real intolerant people, that is, the separatists, could feel insulted. In other words, Canadians view the constitutive parts of their moral ideal as an immanent part of themselves. And so while the whole people proudly claim the unique diversity of this country, most energies are only focused on recreating the same.
And that's the problem. Not only from outside do English Canadians sometimes seem uniquely arrogant, but also this prevents them from actually thinking about themselves and about what they could or should improve.
Acajack, please clarify what in this video you believe would be objectionable by anglo North American standards, since I honestly can see it going in a few different directions.
.
It's actually an extremely simple question: would ABC, CBS, NBC, CTV, CBC or Global air this without thinking twice on a Saturday or Sunday morning. Yes or no?
You can even make the characters white people of European descent if you wish.
Fusion: I don't think that Migratory Chicken is responding as intentionally harshly as you might think he is.
I would say that there does exist in Canada (especially in English Canada) a general sentiment that Canadian have built a "better America" here.
That somehow, with the possible exception of the weather, that Canada offers the good aspects of the US minus most of the bad ones.
I've heard Canadians say this in various ways perhaps 765,578 times over the course of my life. I actually thought it myself for quite some time. It was an important part of my Canadian identity and pride at one point.
This is reflected in articles that say things like "How the American Dream became the Canadian Dream". (Sometimes written by Canadians, sometimes even by Americans.)
And while I agree that historically Canadians have been modest and reserved, to the point where much of the country's global image was based on this, of late many Canadians have begun to be more assured and even smug and cocky.
This piece was written by a virtual friend of mine:
It's actually an extremely simple question: would ABC, CBS, NBC, CTV, CBC or Global air this without thinking twice on a Saturday or Sunday morning. Yes or no?
You can even make the characters white people of European descent if you wish.
Well then I assume the point of contention would be the mother's breasts being uncovered. I don't know what is the policy of any of these channels regarding non-sexual nudity in children's movies. But looking at Kirikou et la sorcière's Wikipedia page (here in English, but there is more information on the French page) it actually did make it harder to distribute it in English-speaking countries, with Universal Pictures requesting that characters wear underwear as a condition to distribute it. It was ultimately distributed by a small company and wasn't submitted to the MPAA. So that's quite interesting. I think the vast majority of anglophone North Americans would not find anything objectionable in this short clip. But it seems that the desire not to offend the small few who would object (and lose their business) is enough to make movie distributors and television channels think twice about showing it.
And somehow this does not seem to be the case in Quebec. Maybe the minority of objectors is just way too small to even need kowtowing to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Fusion: I don't think that Migratory Chicken is responding as intentionally harshly as you might think he is.
I don't think I was especially harsh. I just wanted to drive home the point that yes, Canadians are a quite proud people, and yes, looking at this from the standpoint of a francophone Quebecer is jarring.
Quote:
This piece was written by a virtual friend of mine:
I wonder if when he talks about "cereal box fonts" and "argu[ments] about street signs", he wants to allude to debates over bilingualism and the language question, but in an equivocal way because he knows it's actually a very sore subject in Canada and it'd turn his comment section into something like, well, this thread. It'd shatter the image of Canada as this quirky little nation that's so adorable when they're debating.
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.
I didn't understand.
), but just run it through Google Translate and keep in mind that when Charbonneau talks about "the rock" (or in the original French, "le roc"), he doesn't mean a pro wrestler, a Michael Bay movie, or Gibraltar, but rather the Rest of Canada. It's very interesting and you should really read it if you want to understand how Canadian pride is perceived by people from the outside. I especially want to focus on two parts.
