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.
A country is a territory with borders around it. It's a physical thing. It's separate from nation. Everybody knows this Anyone educated in geography and social studies knows this. Quebec is not a country...
How about we use the Oxford dictionary?
Definition of country in English:
NOUN (plural countries)
A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory:
You aren't making any sense. Going by all the definitions you are posting, GM10, Quebec is in fact a country. I didn't really think of it that way but it fulfills your definitions just fine. Quebec is a nation, right? And it has it's own government, right? It occupies a particular territory, right? Ok, so then Quebec is in fact a country based on the definitions you and hobbesdj are posting. It's tough to argue with the dictionary.
A country is a territory with borders around it. It's a physical thing. It's separate from nation. Everybody knows this Anyone educated in geography and social studies knows this. Quebec is not a country...
How about we use the Oxford dictionary?
Definition of country in English:
NOUN (plural countries)
A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory:
Acajack/Migratory Chicken, since you are both clearly federalists, and clearly quite intelligent people. Yet I am unable to follow your logic when it comes to the independence question. Can you help me to understand why you support the status quo over independence? I ask because you both sound like you both have strong opinions about making dramatic changes to the status quo, yet you are against the only realistic option that will change it: independence. Is it that you are against independence at all costs? Acajack, in your case you are even willing to admit that something has to happen in the future, and admit that independence may be the ultimate destiny of Quebec, so why would you support the status quo over independence? I am genuinely curious to know how you guys perceive this issue.
I gave this question some thought before answering.
There are likely a few reasons that I feel the way I do, but these are probably the two main ones.
First of all, my family history. I was born and raised outside Quebec and am a descendent of francophones who've lived in Canadian provinces (other than Quebec) for about four centuries. A majority of my family members are francophones who live outside Quebec.
As such, this gives me a pan-Canadian vision of the Canadian francophonie, and not one which is entirely focused on Quebec as is often the case for people. Now, as my life becomes more and more entrenched in Quebec and also the francophone communities (and especially my extended family's francophone character) becomes weakened through assimilation to English, this motivation is certainly weakening over time for me, but it's still there and reasonably strong.
Another element is the fact that having lived in both English Canada and French Canada, I am attuned to what each solitude brings to the other one. It's often subtle, but it's still there. And I find that it gives each group a little "value-added" that it otherwise would not have in the absence of the other. There are certain things about Anglo-Canada that would be different if it didn't share a political space with Quebec, and certainly things about Quebec that would be different if it didn't share a country with a majority of anglophones. It certainly wouldn't be the end of the world if that subtle "rubbing off" did not occur, but I still see it as a plus as opposed to a minus.
That said, Migratory Chicken said he'd likely vote Oui if a referendum on sovereignty were held.
Personally I'd likely vote Non, although I admit the temptation to vote Oui is certainly there if only because of the concern that a third Non in a referendum on sovereignty might lead to Quebec (and francophones in Canada in general) having a seriously weakened level of political power, influence and legitimacy as a result.
A third failed referendum by the sovereignists, coupled with changing cross-Canada demographics, is just about the worst possible scenario for the future of francophones in northern North America, including those of us in Quebec.
Is this so clear? Like many people in Quebec, I identify as neither federalist nor sovereigntist. I'd actually vote Yes if there were a referendum tomorrow. But I know that's not going to happen. So I need to find something else.
And BTW I also don't expect constitutional changes to happen in Canada. Only thing I could see is English Canada getting tired of even pretending to be bilingual, and seeking to abolish official bilingualism, which might allow us to define a more honest language policy for the country. Maybe if Senate reform actually leads somewhere it could become a basis for negotiation. But nobody really cares about the Senate anyway, and in any case it'd only lead to the transfer of some minor powers.
It's interesting that there used to be a political party, the Confederation of Regions Party, advocating the redefinition of Canada as, well, a confederation of regions. They were mostly popular as a protest vote against official bilingualism; the idea of course was that in a Canada devolved to this extent, each region could determine its official languages, and it'd be only English everywhere except in Quebec where it'd presumably be only French. Their provincial New Brunswick wing actually managed to become official opposition entirely on the strength of opposition to bilingualism, but since this was in a period of absolute Liberal domination in the province it doesn't mean they truly had strong support. Still, apparently alternate views of Canada are out there.
It's just odd to me, when I see Quebecois (not saying you) who are clearly unhappy with Canada and say and do everything that indicates that they want Quebec to be an independent state, yet they go and vote for Couillard over Marois. It's really baffling to watch. François Legault and the CAQ, I can understand that, but Couillard and the PLQ, no I don't get it at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
I gave this question some thought before answering.
There are likely a few reasons that I feel the way I do, but these are probably the two main ones.
First of all, my family history. I was born and raised outside Quebec and am a descendent of francophones who've lived in Canadian provinces (other than Quebec) for about four centuries. A majority of my family members are francophones who live outside Quebec.
As such, this gives me a pan-Canadian vision of the Canadian francophonie, and not one which is entirely focused on Quebec as is often the case for people. Now, as my life becomes more and more entrenched in Quebec and also the francophone communities (and especially my extended family's francophone character) becomes weakened through assimilation to English, this motivation is certainly weakening over time for me, but it's still there and reasonably strong.
Another element is the fact that having lived in both English Canada and French Canada, I am attuned to what each solitude brings to the other one. It's often subtle, but it's still there. And I find that it gives each group a little "value-added" that it otherwise would not have in the absence of the other. There are certain things about Anglo-Canada that would be different if it didn't share a political space with Quebec, and certainly things about Quebec that would be different if it didn't share a country with a majority of anglophones. It certainly wouldn't be the end of the world if that subtle "rubbing off" did not occur, but I still see it as a plus as opposed to a minus.
That said, Migratory Chicken said he'd likely vote Oui if a referendum on sovereignty were held.
Personally I'd likely vote Non, although I admit the temptation to vote Oui is certainly there if only because of the concern that a third Non in a referendum on sovereignty might lead to Quebec (and francophones in Canada in general) having a seriously weakened level of political power, influence and legitimacy as a result.
A third failed referendum by the sovereignists, coupled with changing cross-Canada demographics, is just about the worst possible scenario for the future of francophones in northern North America, including those of us in Quebec.
Thanks for sharing. You know, I would think that in a truly united Canada, a guy like you would be the poster boy for the success of Canada. A guy who is truly bilingual in English and French, has lived his life between the "two solitudes", and who is clearly quite intelligent and well-read. Yet your experiences outside of Quebec show the reality that francophones outside of Quebec don't feel at home, or even feel like they are the third wheel. As a bystander it is curious that a guy like you isn't treated like the pinnacle of Canadianness whether in Alberta or Newfoundland, and is instead kind of just a French-Canadian at the end of the day. It makes me wonder how much of this multicultural, inclusive Canadian society of English and French coming together is real, and how much only exists on paper.
Sorry to keep pushing you, but you can offer some details on why you would "likely vote non" if you know it would be the "worst possible scenario for the future of francophones in North America"? I have to ask because I am assuming you don't want to emulate the demise of the Missouri French.
Sorry to keep pushing you, but you can offer some details on why you would "likely vote non" if you know it would be the "worst possible scenario for the future of francophones in North America"? .
I dunno... the hope that something else might be on the table other than a straight duel between independence and the take-it-or-leave-it status quo? I did mention that I might actually be torn between the Non and Oui, precisely for the reasons you've cited.
Thanks for sharing. You know, I would think that in a truly united Canada, a guy like you would be the poster boy for the success of Canada. A guy who is truly bilingual in English and French, has lived his life between the "two solitudes", and who is clearly quite intelligent and well-read. Yet your experiences outside of Quebec show the reality that francophones outside of Quebec don't feel at home, or even feel like they are the third wheel. As a bystander it is curious that a guy like you isn't treated like the pinnacle of Canadianness whether in Alberta or Newfoundland, and is instead kind of just a French-Canadian at the end of the day. It makes me wonder how much of this multicultural, inclusive Canadian society of English and French coming together is real, and how much only exists on paper.
.
Interesting observations. It's odd that Canada has a tendency to disappoint, pi55 off or alienate the people you describe. At least when these people are native francophones. Anglophones and allophones (think of comedian Sugar Sammy) who are like tend to be staunch Canadian federalists.
Aside of the handful of Justin Trudeaus who try to capitalize of this personal state of being (and BTW I have done this in my career as well), a large chunk of the "ideal Canadian'' francophones are actually Quebec sovereignists. Most of the others are soft federalists. This is one of the most surprising things I discovered when I started to get to know Quebec.
The PQ has its share of down-on-the-farm unsophisticated francophones, but to be honest not any more than the Quebec Liberals do.
Quebec Liberals and their supporters don't necessarily correspond to the ''ideal Canadian'' model, trust me on that.
Thanks for sharing. You know, I would think that in a truly united Canada, a guy like you would be the poster boy for the success of Canada. A guy who is truly bilingual in English and French, has lived his life between the "two solitudes", and who is clearly quite intelligent and well-read. Yet your experiences outside of Quebec show the reality that francophones outside of Quebec don't feel at home, or even feel like they are the third wheel. As a bystander it is curious that a guy like you isn't treated like the pinnacle of Canadianness whether in Alberta or Newfoundland, and is instead kind of just a French-Canadian at the end of the day. It makes me wonder how much of this multicultural, inclusive Canadian society of English and French coming together is real, and how much only exists on paper.
I think the point you are missing is Canada is only a bilingual country in as much as Quebec speaks French the rest of Canada speaks English.With a population of 35 million 28 million are English and are quite happy with that fact,they have no desire or need to become bilingual,Yet for some reason French signage,labeling and government services are mandatory across the country on a population that for the most part doesnt want it or need it. If Quebec wants to be some distinct society/nation/country its course of action seems obvious to me.
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.
