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.
Well - I think having a passionate stance about the matter and proclaiming my love and support for all of Canada including Quebec is EXACTLY what we need as a nation to come together! - lets chart a new course! On the flip side, we can just allow painful aspects and mistakes of our past to continually haunt us and be anchored by it... Sorry that isn't my style..
Quite a few people share neither your enthusiasm for the Canadian project nor your sentiment that only Canadians should comment on Canadian internal matters. It's unnecessary to lash out at such people unless they're being outrageously offensive or obviously stupid. At least that's how I see it. Nothing that hobbesdj posted on this thread seems to justify the tongue (or in this case, keyboard) lashing he was served up.
What do you think when someone who holds a high office and who has no connection to Canada at all weighs in and tells Canada what it should do? I'm thinking about Ban Ki-moon for the avoidance of doubt. Now you should be outraged by his latest utterances about Canada, but he's not an American, he's the head of the United Nations, and his message is believed by many on the centre-left, so most Canadians have been strangely silent about them. At least hobbesdj has spent time living in Canada and knows something about which he speaks.
Long story short, while larrycarver would appear to be a legitimate target for your scorn, hobbesdj would not. That's how I see it anyway.
I think Quebec legitimittly did have complaints...not only against the English but the church. It's the church that kept many Quebecker's down...all those kids
I also don't think the question Hobbesdj posed regarding Russia invading and taking over Canada is apt at all.
We are talking about two colonial powers fighting over land far from the motherland, they weren't countries. It's the First Nations that really have the right to complain.
A lot has changed since 1759. Is the movement legit? Yes I think so, but less so than in years past. Quebec controls a lot of it's destiny now. Total independence would be bad for both parties.
I have to agree with Fusion's response to Hobbesdj to this ..."Unfortunately loads of English Canadians, lets be honest most of them, could care less about French let alone seeing things from the Francophone Quebecois' perspective."
Living in the west as I do, I remember very well the 1995 referendum. People here cared a lot. Bumpers stickers that claimed
"My Canada, includes Quebec " were plentiful. The results were watched with great interest.
Hobbs is misreading the ROC. Some may say things in frustration, but when it comes down to it, most want Quebec to stay.
Quite a few people share neither your enthusiasm for the Canadian project nor your sentiment that only Canadians should comment on Canadian internal matters. It's unnecessary to lash out at such people unless they're being outrageously offensive or obviously stupid. At least that's how I see it. Nothing that hobbesdj posted on this thread seems to justify the tongue (or in this case, keyboard) lashing he was served up.
What do you think when someone who holds a high office and who has no connection to Canada at all weighs in and tells Canada what it should do? I'm thinking about Ban Ki-moon for the avoidance of doubt. Now you should be outraged by his latest utterances about Canada, but he's not an American, he's the head of the United Nations, and his message is believed by many on the centre-left, so most Canadians have been strangely silent about them. At least hobbesdj has spent time living in Canada and knows something about which he speaks.
Long story short, while larrycarver would appear to be a legitimate target for your scorn, hobbesdj would not. That's how I see it anyway.
Well you may not share enthusiasm for the 'Canadian' project but I think the majority of Canadians including the majority of Quebecers do and they as we all have for 150 years been and still are an active part in it.. If you look at Hobbes - he completely generalized how practically the entire country of Canada 'feels' about Quebec yet he has minimal experience in the rest of the country.. Naturally i'm going to take it personally when someone lumps me into the same bag of coal or lumps as all into one bag of coal on an issue that he knows is something that is very important to any nation..If you don't think that is an issue than I digress - than again i'm speaking to someone who has zero enthusiasm about his country or minimal enthusiam for it so I can see why you would side with an individual who doesn't give a damn about it either.. From my perspective - I don't really feel as though I need to explain myself to such indifference. Shoot me for giving a damn about Canada Maclock... What stirs your passions about Canada if any?
As for Ban Ki Moon i'm not sure what you're referring to to be honest... Having said that, if he was trying to mettle in Canadian affair or influence matters of unity and fan flames from afar - yeah i'd have some problems with that as well and would tell him the same thing.
Well, to be fair to Hobbes, I can see how he may have gotten those impressions visiting only Montreal and reading newspapers like the Gazette. It must be said that we Anglo-Quebecois are not representative of Anglo Canadians in general, especially not on this issue. As a community we are typically much better informed about the issue, but paradoxically far, far more partisan, emotional opposed to, and unyielding about the Parti Quebecois. This is not how English Canadians in general are, it is a particular cultural quirk engendered by feelings of persecution, exclusion and existential threat. Most ROC Anglos do not have similar attitudes, even after they move to Quebec.
P.S. I am speaking very generally about this attitude when it comes to Anglo-Quebecois. It is more true of those who are either older, or who have fewer connections outside of the community.
I have to agree with Fusion's response to Hobbesdj to this ..."Unfortunately loads of English Canadians, lets be honest most of them, could care less about French let alone seeing things from the Francophone Quebecois' perspective."
Living in the west as I do, I remember very well the 1995 referendum. People here cared a lot. Bumpers stickers that claimed
"My Canada, includes Quebec " were plentiful. The results were watched with great interest.
Hobbs is misreading the ROC. Some may say things in frustration, but when it comes down to it, most want Quebec to stay.
Thanks Nat - I take quiet comfort in knowing that the majority of Canadians feel like this.. Its an important issue that involves all of us! If we ever do go down the road where the country decides to splinter - I would hope that it would be of our own accord and a choice from within!
"Because I said I prefer not to live in Canadian weather. The weather in Maryland is much warmer than anywhere in Canada. In fact, Maryland felt practically tropical coming here after Quebec. I didnt say anything about trying to get away from borderline humid subtropical/hot summer continental weather. If I did move for weather I would bypass San Diego and go straight for Honolulu - it's crossed my mind many times"
Moving to Minnesota, California, Georgia, New York, Maryland, Colorado, Washington and Massachussets have all crossed my mind many times. It doesn't mean I want to move there. Honestly I'm astounded that you pulled up that quote to prove a point that has nothing to do whatsoever with the subject at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclock
It seems to me that you're being far too dramatic. You appear to be reacting emotionally about this issue and that seems to be clouding your objectivity a little bit. I don't mean to sound harsh or to be provocative; I'm just trying to tell you what I perceive here on this thread.
Moving to Minnesota, California, Georgia, New York, Maryland, Colorado, Washington and Massachussets have all crossed my mind many times. It doesn't mean I want to move there. Honestly I'm astounded that you pulled up that quote to prove a point that has nothing to do whatsoever with the subject at hand.
Well you may not share enthusiasm for the 'Canadian' project but I think the majority of Canadians including the majority of Quebecers do and they as we all have for 150 years been and still are an active part in it.. If you look at Hobbes - he completely generalized how practically the entire country of Canada 'feels' about Quebec yet he has minimal experience in the rest of the country.. Naturally i'm going to take it personal when someone lumps me into the same bag of coal or lumps as all into one bag of coal on an issue that he knows is something that is very important to any nation..If you don't think that is an issue than I digress - than again i'm speaking to someone who has zero enthusiasm about his country or minimal enthusiam for it so I can see why you would side with an individual who doesn't give a damn about it either.. From my perspective - I don't really feel as though I need to explain myself to such indifference. Shoot me for giving a damn about Canada Maclock...
Canada is a nation cobbled together by compromise, by commerce, and by contract, so Canadians don't really have much shared experience or a deep well of shared national history upon which to draw to define themselves as one people from coast to coast to coast. That's likely one of the reasons that war and Canada's military history are so popular to a certain type of Canadian: they both appeal to shared traumas they believe define us as a nation. To military historians and to armed service members, yes, those traumas might well do so, but to the rest of us, I'd wager that they don't. That doesn't mean people don't or won't appreciate military servicemen and servicewomen and the sacrifices that they have made, however. It's just that the common Canadian isn't likely to appeal to Vimy or to the Battle of the Somme if they are going to offer what, to them, defines what it is to be Canadian.
Those Canadians who are keenest on the country always seem to be threatened when ideas like these are suggested. The Quebecois are an ethnic nation. Newfoundlanders are an ethnic nation. Acadians are an ethnic nation. The aboriginals, in all of their many nations and their many tongues and traditions, are nations. Canadians, as an undifferentiated whole, across the land, aren't there yet and I'm not sure that they ever will be. Maybe they'll get there some day. I don't know. What I do know is that doesn't mean Canadians can't have a nice, prosperous, and peaceful country, nor does it mean that all Canadians, from disparate parts of the country, having wildly different experiences of what Canada might mean to them (if much or anything at all), need to speak with a common voice or to share a common vision. That hobbesdj spoke about how he can empathise with the Quebecois experience, even if I don't think that their particular recounting of Canadian history is all that complete or all that truthful at times, doesn't mean that he needs to be invalidated, to be encouraged to pipe down, and to butt out because it's not his country. I don't get that. Not one bit.
What did hobbesdj say that "lumps [you] in the same bag of coal or lumps all into one bag of coal" about this issue? You seem to have flown off the handle with very little provocation, if any at all, on this matter. I'm well and truly lost here and find myself befuddled why you think it was appropriate to strike out at him. Please help me and others who are equally puzzled understand why you think your reaction was proportionate or even necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
What stirs your passions about Canada if any?
Not much if we're being honest. I'll readily agree that it's a decent place to work and it's a good country, especially if one has a family to raise, but I'm not a big homer when it comes to Canada. There are other good countries out there as well. Canada-centric, I'm not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
As for Ban Ki Moon i'm not sure what you're referring to to be honest... Having said that, if he was trying to mettle in Canadian affair or influence matters of unity and fan flames from afar - yeah i'd have some problems with that as well and would tell him the same thing.
Well, he was commenting on a Canadian internal matter, albeit it after being prompted by Peter Mansbridge to do so. Look it up. Ban Ki-moon is a mover and shaker, trying to influence what we do internally, and he should be accorded a big raspberry for doing so because this is well and truly none of his business. Canada is a mature and responsible sovereign country making its way as best in can in this world, and we don't need any help from Ban Ki-moon or the United Nations to do so. hobbesdj, on the other hand, is only an interested instructor at an American community college who completed his undergraduate studies in Canada and who teaches history. (No offense intended, hobbesdj.)
Ban Ki-moon is in a position to try and mess around with matters which are for our concern alone and he did so, yet very few cried out. hobbesdj isn't in any position to influence or to meddle in our affairs, and yet posters came out to try and intimidate him into silence. You should get worked up about important things and about people who matter and who deserve a smack down. This doesn't seem to be one of those things and hobbesdj doesn't seem to be one of those people. (Again, no offense intended, hobbesdj.)
For those of you who read and speak French, take a look at seperatist grievances. One of the grievances is that English Canadians are totally disconnected from Quebecois culture. Using the fact that some on the other side of the country put "Quebec" bumper stickers on their car and consider that to be showing interest in Quebec illustrates just how deep this disconnect is. Quebecois seperatists dont care if you put Quebec bumper stickers on your car, or proclaim to love Quebec when they threaten seperation. They care about Anglos learning about thir language and culture. They want English Canadians to at least try to understand their culture just as they have done with Anglo culture for centuries. The percentage of English Canadians who speak French is about the same as people in England who can speak French and that says alot about how interested English Canadians are in what is supposed to be an equal culture. Despite great efforts by the Canadian government, the great majority of English Canadians cannot speak French despite massive pressure by the federal government and even economic incentives.
Whether 'most' English Canadians support the marriage with Quebec or not is a question I do not have the answer to. That being said, it is undeniable that a large percentage of English Canadians see Quebec as a pain in the backside. They recognize that Canada would run far more efficiently without having to cater to two nations in one. They see Quebec as being 'bribed' with disproportionate levels of federal funds. There are also many who feel that the Quebecois blackmail the ROC with seperation if they don't get their way. As a result many English Canadians have an attitude of 'good riddance' towards Quebec. Just like the Quebecois seperatists, they are not interested in who flies the maple leaf flag or who is offically part of Canada on a world map. Like the Quebecois seperatists they see clearly that these are two foreign groups of people. Like the seperatists, they want a system that works, and they feel that the status quo isn't working.
Canada is a nation cobbled together by compromise, by commerce, and by contract, so Canadians don't really have much shared experience or a deep well of shared national history upon which to draw to define themselves as one people from coast to coast to coast. That's likely one of the reasons that war and Canada's military history are so popular to a certain type of Canadian: they both appeal to shared traumas they believe define us as a nation. To military historians and to armed service members, yes, those traumas might well do so, but to the rest of us, I'd wager that they don't. That doesn't mean people don't or won't appreciate military servicemen and servicewomen and the sacrifices that they have made, however. It's just that the common Canadian isn't likely to appeal to Vimy or to the Battle of the Somme if they are going to offer what, to them, defines what it is to be Canadian.
I think you're wrong from start to finish with the "cobbled", "compromise" and "no shared vision" stuff.
Canada does not solely define it's historical roots to only as far back as WWI and was a nation being crafted long before that war. A railroad from coast to coast was built through a national dream long before those wars you mentioned. Canal systems were envisioned and built to tie the two most populaced provinces of this country together commercially by people sharing a national vision.
Those Canadians who are keenest on the country always seem to be threatened when ideas like these are suggested. The Quebecois are an ethnic nation. Newfoundlanders are an ethnic nation. Acadians are an ethnic nation. The aboriginals, in all of their many nations and their many tongues and traditions, are nations. Canadians, as an undifferentiated whole, across the land, aren't there yet and I'm not sure that they ever will be. Maybe they'll get there some day. I don't know. What I do know is that doesn't mean Canadians can't have a nice, prosperous, and peaceful country, nor does it mean that all Canadians, from disparate parts of the country, having wildly different experiences of what Canada might mean to them (if much or anything at all), need to speak with a common voice or to share a common vision. That hobbesdj spoke about how he can empathise with the Quebecois experience, even if I don't think that their particular recounting of Canadian history is all that complete or all that truthful at times, doesn't mean that he needs to be invalidated, to be encouraged to pipe down, and to butt out because it's not his country. I don't get that. Not one bit.
What did hobbesdj say that "lumps [you] in the same bag of coal or lumps all into one bag of coal" about this issue? You seem to have flown off the handle with very little provocation, if any at all, on this matter. I'm well and truly lost here and find myself befuddled why you think it was appropriate to strike out at him. Please help me and others who are equally puzzled understand why you think your reaction was proportionate or even necessary.
Well since you're lost, befuddled and all; shouldn't this little bit right here provoke a response you describe as "uncalled for": "Let me know when you decide to live among your countrymen and learn their language and culture, then we cn talk about having an objective view."
Not much if we're being honest. I'll readily agree that it's a decent place to work and it's a good country, especially if one has a family to raise, but I'm not a big homer when it comes to Canada. There are other good countries out there as well. Canada-centric, I'm not.
Obviously
Well, he was commenting on a Canadian internal matter, albeit it after being prompted by Peter Mansbridge to do so. Look it up. Ban Ki-moon is a mover and shaker, trying to influence what we do internally, and he should be accorded a big raspberry for doing so because this is well and truly none of his business. Canada is a mature and responsible sovereign country making its way as best in can in this world, and we don't need any help from Ban Ki-moon or the United Nations to do so. hobbesdj, on the other hand, is only an interested instructor at an American community college who completed his undergraduate studies in Canada and who teaches history. (No offense intended, hobbesdj.)
Ban Ki-moon is in a position to try and mess around with matters which are for our concern alone and he did so, yet very few cried out. hobbesdj isn't in any position to influence or to meddle in our affairs, and yet posters came out to try and intimidate him into silence. You should get worked up about important things and about people who matter and who deserve a smack down. This doesn't seem to be one of those things and hobbesdj doesn't seem to be one of those people. (Again, no offense intended, hobbesdj.)
Ban Ki Moon has not commented publicly on the Quebec Independence movement which is, or at least was the topic of this thread. Wouldn't you think it more appropriate to start a thread to discuss his postulating about Canada?
Last edited by BruSan; 12-07-2014 at 08:02 PM..
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.
