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.
And he's also completely ignoring the lack of effort on the part of majority of Quebecers to experience or embrace 'restofcanada' Canadian culture while making of themselves the victims in a tragidrama of supposed oppression.
There is some truth to this. The old " english Canada has no culture ".
I actually knew a guy who moved out to Vancouver from Quebec since a mutual friend in Quebec told him he could find work in construction ( he was a plumber and Vancouver had a lot of construction at that time..still does ).
He was hesitant, but came. He loved it. Some of the stories he told me shocked me. Some of his friends, who had never been here, believed the very crapola that Hobbs is pushing, that english Canadians HATE Quebec and Quebeckers. That he would never get a job, here, that people would be rude to him because of his accent etc.
His eyes were opened and I felt some relief when after informing me of those warnings, that he found the opposite to be true.
My guess, just a guess, is that some Quebeckers remember the time, or have heard from older people the stories of when French Canadians were not treated well by english speakers, in employment etc. WITHIN Quebec and have transferred the english WITHIN Quebec to mean the english WITHIN all of Canada.
My guess, just a guess, is that some Quebeckers remember the time, or have heard from older people the stories of when French Canadians were not treated well by english speakers, in employment etc. WITHIN Quebec and have transferred the english WITHIN Quebec to mean the english WITHIN all of Canada.
Assuming that French Canadians were treated badly in the past *within* Quebec, how do you think they were treated *outside* Quebec in those days? Likely worse.
So I suppose that given that the francophone emancipation outside of Quebec is not complete in all aspects of life (something that would not be realistic anyway for demographic reasons), some people I suppose assume that it's still like the bad old days for francophones as soon as you leave Quebec.
Which it is, in some ways. In that, you can't really function in French in most cases without checking your language at the door and learning/speaking another one.
You know, it's a mistake to claim that I don't try and understand the Francophone perspective simply because I disagree with separatism.
It's not that you disagree with Quebec independence; that's of course a perfectly legitimate position to hold.
Quote:
I say it's exclusionary because it is, I am from Quebec and I have spent a lifetime soaking up this issue and coming to understand it from multiple angles. I understand French Canadian culture and history perfectly well, and have been educated in that history in French, in Quebec.
But if you think that Quebec sovereigntists are by nature exclusionary, closed-minded, focussed on the past, while Quebec federalists are by nature inclusive, open-minded, modern, focussed on the future, then you don't really understand what it's all about.
Look at me. I'm a francophone from Quebec. I speak fluent English, and have some basic knowledge of at least two other languages. I'm very well-educated, and I'm also very interested in politics and history. I now live and work in Europe, at least from the time being. Yet, while I'm not exactly a sovereigntist, I'm not really a federalist either. I don't have any problem with being a Canadian, but I don't feel any attachment to Canada either. I'm Canadian only because I'm a Quebecer and Quebec is part of Canada. But "Canadian identity" the way anglophones and even some francophones talk about it is basically foreign to me. It just doesn't have any meaning to me, and in fact I dislike important parts of it, the obsession with the United States being only one of them.
It's clear that despite having experienced the world, having been exposed to many different cultures, and knowing English, I never came to see Canada as uniquely special. People like me exist. If you feel attachment to Canada, that's great, but that's not something you came to in perfect objectivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci
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
Sure (and you'd probably be surprised at how strongly francophone Quebecers would agree with you here), but then again "all those kids" prevented us from being completely overrun by anglophones in the 19th century.
Quote:
Hobbs is misreading the ROC. Some may say things in frustration, but when it comes down to it, most want Quebec to stay.
Sure, Canadians certainly do want Quebec to remain part of the federation, though I think that for many of them it's not something they "feel" so strongly. But yeah, might as well not lose one quarter of our population and a large amount of territory, of course.
But are Canadians outside Quebec really willing to accept Quebec as it is as truly Canadian? I mean, sure, you may say you like Quebec, and I do believe you, but isn't there a "but..." somewhere after? You like Quebec and it's a vital part of Canada and you really really want it to stay in the country, but... wouldn't it be nice if they could just...? Can you complete this sentence for me?
I'm not saying Quebec will never converge towards the rest of Canada. I don't wish for this to happen, since I like Quebec as it is, but it could. Although for now that's not where we're at, and you cannot force Quebecers to play the role you'd like them to play in Canada.
I see this thread has grown to a large number of pages (man, you people do have some hot-button issues; Quebec and the USA being the two obvious ones) so I'll just post this now and maybe read the rest later.
Assuming that French Canadians were treated badly in the past *within* Quebec, how do you think they were treated *outside* Quebec in those days? Likely worse.
So I suppose that given that the francophone emancipation outside of Quebec is not complete in all aspects of life (something that would not be realistic anyway for demographic reasons), some people I suppose assume that it's still like the bad old days for francophones as soon as you leave Quebec.
Which it is, in some ways. In that, you can't really function in French in most cases without checking your language at the door and learning/speaking another one.
I haven't done much research on how Quebeckers were treated outside of the Quebec years ago, but can go by my family on both sides. My dad's side came out to Vancouver in 1909. Never had any issues that were passed down to the family and actually did very well in their business out here.
My mother side came out in 1950, and same thing. My grandmother would of been 40 and grandfather 42. My grandmother didn't speak a word of english, but learned. Her stories of those times never mentioned any hostility towards her or her family. In fact, she remembered those days fondly.
Yes it's true what you say about language, but it's not a reflection on english Canada that this is so.
Funny, but I find all of his points on that list sum up quite nicely a certain Canadian unity/identity orthodoxy that is extremely common in Canada. Not everyone thinks like that of course, but these views are widely shared and pretty mainstream.
In contrast, people from Germany feel German no matter what. People from France feel French no matter what. Americans feel American regardless.
Nevertheless, nationalism is a recent development in human history. Germany as a nation only dates from the 19th century; France may be older but it only became linguistically united (through force) around that time as well. Today of course, this is mostly done and over with. All those national identities have been constructed by political will and the Canadian government has been trying to do the same since at least the 60s or so. As we can see in this thread, they've been rather successful at it among anglophones. Somewhat less among francophones in Quebec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Why don't you start a thread and see what happens? (I'm not against it, but I know what will happen.)
The question is, what does Canada need to do to build bridges with Quebec, is that correct? Well, as for me, what I want is acceptance that Quebec knows what it's doing. I don't need interest or anything like that, I know it's not going to happen. I just want Canadians outside Quebec to accept that they don't know everything about Quebec, in fact they don't know much, and if we do something they don't understand, well maybe we have a reason. Basically a bit more humility.
Now what I want to know is what Canadians want from Quebecers. Just tell us, and we'll be able to decide if it's possible or not. As I understand in this thread, they want us to show interest in them, but they're not clear about what this involves. BruSan complains that Quebecers, when given the opportunity to move somewhere else in Canada, didn't take it. Even though moving is not easy, and if you don't speak good English, moving to English Canada is a rather difficult proposition. As for Natnasci, he says what Concordia professors say isn't representative of English Canadians and we should seek other people to talk with. But whom?
Nevertheless, nationalism is a recent development in human history. Germany as a nation only dates from the 19th century; France may be older but it only became linguistically united (through force) around that time as well. Today of course, this is mostly done and over with. All those national identities have been constructed by political will and the Canadian government has been trying to do the same since at least the 60s or so. As we can see in this thread, they've been rather successful at it among anglophones. Somewhat less among francophones in Quebec.
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.
19th century nationalism took the idea of the ethnos and combined it with expansionism. 19th century nationalism advocated the unification of all people of an ethnos or nation under one single political entity. In other words, all Germans should unite under one German state, all Italians should unite under one Italian state. Before the 19th century, people perfectly recognized that they were part of an ethnos, but didn't believe that all members of the this nation needed to be united under one king, or one flag, or one government. So our inhabitant of Saxony recognized the Hessian as a fellow German, but did not think that they needed to be united under a single state designed for members of the German nation. Going back to the example of the Ionian, he too would recognize an Athenian or a Corinthian as a fellow Greek, but saw no need to unify with them to create an all-encompassing Greek state.
So when I speak of a nation, I do not refer to the bastardized idea of a nation that has resulted from 19th century nationalism, but to the idea of an ethnos that has existed since time immemorial. 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. But he nation as it exists in Quebec is not this 19th century form of nationalism, but a recognition that the Quebecois are a people united by language, culture, traditional religion, historical traditions, and shared experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migratory Chicken
The question is, what does Canada need to do to build bridges with Quebec, is that correct? Well, as for me, what I want is acceptance that Quebec knows what it's doing. I don't need interest or anything like that, I know it's not going to happen. I just want Canadians outside Quebec to accept that they don't know everything about Quebec, in fact they don't know much, and if we do something they don't understand, well maybe we have a reason. Basically a bit more humility.
Now what I want to know is what Canadians want from Quebecers. Just tell us, and we'll be able to decide if it's possible or not. As I understand in this thread, they want us to show interest in them, but they're not clear about what this involves. BruSan complains that Quebecers, when given the opportunity to move somewhere else in Canada, didn't take it. Even though moving is not easy, and if you don't speak good English, moving to English Canada is a rather difficult proposition. As for Natnasci, he says what Concordia professors say isn't representative of English Canadians and we should seek other people to talk with. But whom?
Yes, it's legitimate. I support the right of people preserve their own kind and their heritage, language, culture, etc. I don't particularly want to see Quebec leave Canada--and I think preservation is possible as a unique part of Canada--but if it's the will of the people of Quebec to leave the union, they should be able to do so.
Other than larrcarver I don't see anyone reveling at the prospect of a fragmented Canada. I see people who are looking at Canada for what it is - a contract between the Quebecois (Canadien) and British North American colonial elites. If independence was on the table, the Quebecois would have taken it. But it wasn't. Why? Because the British said so. Instead they chose to become part of the new Dominion of Canada which they called "the least harmful option". So Canada isn't a "nation" in the sense of Germany or France - or Quebec. It is just a political entity. This is why the Canadian government has pushed so hard to create a Canadian identity.
Whether by promoting Canadian Content or bilingualism, the creation of a "nation" has been a top government priority. In contrast, people from Germany feel German no matter what. People from France feel French no matter what. Americans feel American regardless. The Quebecois feel like they are Quebecois no matter what the federal government and international boundaries tell them. The people of these political entities don't have to try to be French, German, American, or Quebecois. They just are. In Canada the Quebecois have to "try" to be Canadian. English Canadians have to "try" not to be American. It's no coincidence that traveling English Canadians are assumed to be Americans. It's no coincidence that some lament that the Quebecois don't try hard enough to understand the ROC. This bilingual nation of Canada does not exist. The independent state of Canada does. The nation of Quebec does exist, but the independent state of Quebec does not. This truth strikes at the very core of the fabricated pan-Canadian identity.
I don't know that you have a point with Germany unless there has been some change recently and the German-born Turks are accepted as Germans.
I don't know any Canadians who feel they have to 'try' not to be something they aren't.
I don't know that you have a point with Germany unless there has been some change recently and the German-born Turks are accepted as Germans.
I don't know any Canadians who feel they have to 'try' not to be something they aren't.
That's exactly the point - despite being born in Germany, speaking German, and having German citizenship, German Turks are commonly viewed as something other than German. It's an excellent example of how the idea of an ethnos, or nation, is something that a government often can not control. It is a similar situation in many European countries where well-assimilated immigrants are frequently not accepted by members of the nation as being 'real' Germans, or Frenchmen, or Englishmen. Similarly we have a situation in Canada where despite massive government effort to create one Canadian nation, the Quebecois and English Canadians remain in practice two seperate peoples.
Regarding your second point, look at the effort Canadians put into distinguishing themselves from Americans. Mexicans do not have to distinguish themselves from Americans and the British do not have to distinguish themselves from Americans. The Quebecois do not have to distinguish themselves from Americans either. Only English Canadians have this need to constantly try not to be American, what Migratory Chicken calls an 'obsession' with Americans. Some Canadian historians and sociologists put it bluntly: they do this because English Canadians are Americans. Not in the sense of being citizens of the United States, but by virtue of being part of the English-speaking North American 'nation'. Regardless of the flag being flown or the lines in a map, many intellectuals argue that English Canadians and US Americans are a group with shared language, history, culture, experiences, food, music, and so on. Canadian academics aside, I personally find most English Canadians less foreign than the inhabitants of Mississippi who I share a federal government and citizenship with.
Nevertheless, nationalism is a recent development in human history. Germany as a nation only dates from the 19th century; France may be older but it only became linguistically united (through force) around that time as well. Today of course, this is mostly done and over with. All those national identities have been constructed by political will and the Canadian government has been trying to do the same since at least the 60s or so. As we can see in this thread, they've been rather successful at it among anglophones. Somewhat less among francophones in Quebec.
The question is, what does Canada need to do to build bridges with Quebec, is that correct? Well, as for me, what I want is acceptance that Quebec knows what it's doing. I don't need interest or anything like that, I know it's not going to happen. I just want Canadians outside Quebec to accept that they don't know everything about Quebec, in fact they don't know much, and if we do something they don't understand, well maybe we have a reason. Basically a bit more humility.
Now what I want to know is what Canadians want from Quebecers. Just tell us, and we'll be able to decide if it's possible or not. As I understand in this thread, they want us to show interest in them, but they're not clear about what this involves. BruSan complains that Quebecers, when given the opportunity to move somewhere else in Canada, didn't take it. Even though moving is not easy, and if you don't speak good English, moving to English Canada is a rather difficult proposition. As for Natnasci, he says what Concordia professors say isn't representative of English Canadians and we should seek other people to talk with. But whom?
You completely glossed over the part where I pointed out a lot of English speakers from Ontario and one from Manitoba were willing to attempt full "French Emersion" by transferring to Quebec City knowing from the interview process that would require nothing short of learning the language and cultural emersion to fit in at all. They were made fully aware by relatively senior management from the Quebec locations there would be a "requirement" to perform and some resistance, even animosity, to their presence, yet they were willing, the Quebecers were not. Yes that is a complaint of mine repeated often to anyone who will listen.. All of this one sided crud gets caught in my craw.
These threads all take the same avenue of approach assuming that grievances Quebec has with the ROC are somehow sacrosanct and without challenge while any of the reverse is simply not considered as having any merit, or even discussion worthy.
Your question from another post:
Quote: "But are Canadians outside Quebec really willing to accept Quebec as it is as truly Canadian? I mean, sure, you may say you like Quebec, and I do believe you, but isn't there a "but..." somewhere after? You like Quebec and it's a vital part of Canada and you really really want it to stay in the country, but... wouldn't it be nice if they could just"..Accept that the rest of Canada is also unique in many ways and does not deliberately single Quebec out for special punitive derision.
"Can you complete this sentence for me?"
Well, did I offer anything worth consideration?
Somewhere there has to be a common ground where we do not sit at a table and constantly be assigned default roles as oppressor and victim. How do you start any negotiating process if one party assumes the role of expecting all considerations due? Starting any relationship with the assumed position of one party being that they are "owed" pay-back or make-up for past, real or presumed, grievances just won't work.....ever!
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.
