Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by thewave46

It's the internet, so YMMV.

Also, the discussion is dominated by a handful of people. How reflective they are of a society of millions of people? Again, YMMV.

I largely get the impression the Quebec does not particularly care about the rest of Canada. They might be somewhat annoyed if you're particularly rude about demanding to be served in English, but are generally reasonably tolerant if you make some attempt to try to work on their terms. It also depends on the place. Montreal versus Saguenay? Different places, different takes.

People crow here about how diverse their city/province is. Well this literally is diversity, for better or worse. I do suspect some just want 'diversity' in the superficial sense and not the deeper (and probably more conflicted) one.

Yeah, I know... I've been on 'the internet' for 25-ish years, so I'm aware of the dynamics of these platforms. I know it's a few people speaking for the many, however when you hear the same themes over and over again with references that these are popular ideas in the majority of the province, you have to think there's something to it (i.e. the smoke and fire analogy).

Does that mean I'm going to travel to Quebec and say "Fuck you frenchy - speak to me in English"? Hell no. I will do as I always have done - attempt to speak whatever French I am capable of, have them chuckle at me and then speak to me in fluid English. If they don't speak English, then I'll fumble about with random words and gestures just as I have done with my Japanese colleagues who come to the country with long-ago learned but seldom used English skills. The basic rules of mutual respect for all people, regardless of culture or language should always apply and I do my best to do my part, even if I don't have deep insight into their culture (which is a lifetime's worth of 'work in progress' ).

I think my comments were fair as they stand, though, in the context of this thread on this forum, and I am in agreement with your take on the situation in general.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In browsing a few pages of this thread I'm a little taken aback by the impression that people from Quebec (not all, I'm sure, but a majority? I don't know) seem to think you're still at war with the English, and have to fight vigorously to keep them from taking your language and culture from you. Meanwhile, most people in the rest of Canada (IMHO) think of Quebec as just another province where most people speak French.
.

It's not a war but English is always going to be seen as a threat. How can it not be given the demographics of the country we share, the continent and even global trends? The tough balancing act is to maintain the distinction between individual people and their language which is pretty much a natural predator for any other language. It's kind of like a "hate the sin but not the sinner" kind of thing.

Also, ROCers who don't live here may think certain things and respect or accept that Quebec is going to be French speaking but that doesn't always translate in terms of behaviour when many of them move here. It's also true of people from abroad, many of which are moving to "Canada, North America" which comes with the linguistic expectations and assumptions you can imagine.

It wasn't so much of an issue when Quebec wasn't seen as a desirable place to move to by most ROCers, but now that Montreal and even many parts of southern and western Quebec are increasingly popular with ROCers, it's a legitimate concern or challenge as to whether they are going to learn even a bit of French to live here - or not.

[dleung]

^^What happened to "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" lol. Surely you are pro-merit and against artificial quotas for black architects or chinese basketball players, or legislated multiculturalism

Originally Posted by Acajack

I've been warning you that I would.
In keeping with the spirit of the times, though, I am only applying the principles to my own in-group!

Nothing edgy about being a hypocrite lol, it was clear you are simply against SJW stuff because it means your in-group loses some advantage, and pro-SJW logic if your in-group were disadvantaged in some way.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Many (but not all) national consumer products had bilingual labelling long before federal regulations required it in the late 1960s.

Kellogg's had bilingual cereal boxes in the early 1900s.

I just don't see how what were logical business decisions based on demographic and financial considerations, later enshrined by laws, are somehow a shining example of magnanimity or generosity. (And yes I wouldn't expect someone fair-minded like you to be bothered by them.)

What exactly does it cost or take away from Anglo-Canadians that labels are bilingual?

If I were going to point to something that actually is more generous and comes at some cost, it would be bilingualism in the federal public service.

Again, I don't think think that this is an advantage that status quo Canada has over a hypothetical independent Quebec (where 100% of services would be available in French and public servants would work in French all day) so maybe not a "buffer" per se, but it's a better example than bilingual labels of Canada making a sincere effort.

Fair comments, and I wasn't intending to go into a deep dive into topics like required bilingualism in the federal public service (or federal politics, for that matter), but yes that's a good example.

The bolded comment... why should there be a feeling that a concession needs to have a cost or take something away from the ROC in order to be considered valid? I've always thought the best concessions would be ones that are offered out of understanding and inclusion rather than the ones forced upon the country. Of course there will always be conflict and 'forced' concessions, but those are also the ones that tend to make the country seem more divided and less 'together' although I do realize that sometimes they are necessary.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yeah, I know... I've been on 'the internet' for 25-ish years, so I'm aware of the dynamics of these platforms. I know it's a few people speaking for the many, however when you hear the same themes over and over again with references that these are popular ideas in the majority of the province, you have to think there's something to it (i.e. the smoke and fire analogy).
.

I sometimes get comments à la "you're just speaking for yourself" but if one looks at the Quebec government's statements and positions, their electoral fortunes, public opinion polling, I am not really just speaking for myself on here.

And on rare occasions, I even put something out there that I see as the majority view in Quebec, even if I don't share it personally.

Originally Posted by dleung

^^What happened to "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" lol.



Nothing edgy about being a hypocrite lol, you are simply against SJW stuff if it means your in-group loses some advantage, and pro SJW logic if your in-group were disadvantaged in some way.

Because it's 2021.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Fair comments, and I wasn't intending to go into a deep dive into topics like required bilingualism in the federal public service (or federal politics, for that matter), but yes that's a good example.

The bolded comment... why should there be a feeling that a concession needs to have a cost or take something away from the ROC in order to be considered valid? I've always thought the best concessions would be ones that are offered out of understanding and inclusion rather than the ones forced upon the country. Of course there will always be conflict and 'forced' concessions, but those are also the ones that tend to make the country seem more divided and less 'together' although I do realize that sometimes they are necessary.

I don't disagree. It's just that if you listen to some people talk, it seems like bilingualism on cereal boxes is some type of onerous costly concession that "Canada" has made to "Quebec".

As I said, even if Quebec had become independent in 1995, Corn Flakes boxes in Lethbridge would still have French on them in 2021.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is a very good point.

Even if its population is largely European-descended and western in culture, Quebec is still our best example of in-your-face deep diversity that's like a foreign object smack dab more or less in the middle of Canada, covering a huge territory, with obviously a different language but also to some degree different laws, cultural cues, a different balance between collective vs. individual rights, a different historical narrative and outlook, etc.

It's the ultimate test for a country that always likes to claim that "diversity is our strength" but so far I'd say it's only getting a middling grade on this one.

The idea that real diversity is a 'sunshine and rainbows' thing is one I've come to accept as kind of a myth. I get why the powers that be sell it as such, but it's not really that. I consider any country with such differing takes that isn't actively at war with itself as a minor miracle unto itself.

The best thing about diversity is that it balances out the worst impulses of any given society. Very homogeneous societies can achieve great things, but they're often their own worst enemies.

The best thing about Quebec's presence in Canada is that it was the motivation to push Canada to define itself beyond a British colony. I try and imagine a Canada without Quebec and I see a country that still has the Red Ensign as its flag and where the speed limit signs are still in MPH. Or even more vainly struggles to differentiate itself from the superpower to the south. How different are the Kiwis and Aussies from each other, really? (The Kiwis love being confused with Aussies)

These aren't things that come naturally, but as a product of real diverse society. They're not nice processes and are often the source of much conflict. They're key to a unique identity, however.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The idea that real diversity is a 'sunshine and rainbows' thing is one I've come to accept as kind of a myth. I get why the powers that be sell it as such, but it's not really that. I consider any country with such differing takes that isn't actively at war with itself as a minor miracle unto itself.

The best thing about diversity is that it balances out the worst impulses of any given society. Very homogeneous societies can achieve great things, but they're often their own worst enemies.

The best thing about Quebec's presence in Canada is that it was the motivation to push Canada to define itself beyond a British colony. I try and imagine a Canada without Quebec and I see a country that still has the Red Ensign as its flag and where the speed limit signs are still in MPH. Or even more vainly struggles to differentiate itself from the superpower to the south. How different are the Kiwis and Aussies from each other, really? (The Kiwis love being confused with Aussies)

These aren't things that come naturally, but as a product of real diverse society. They're not nice processes and are often the source of much conflict. They're key to a unique identity, however.

I think Canada's been quite lucky so far with this. For starters lucky that the resources and economic potential of the country are disproportionately high relative to the number of people who live here. A mostly prosperous population is a really good stabilizing factor, and diminishes tensions among diverse groups.

Also the relative sizes of the forces that are in tension with each other leads to a kind of edgy but fairly stable balance. Anglo-Canada is still big enough to dominate but not so much as to be able to bully Quebec into submission. Quebec is big enough to be a pretty effective counterweight but still not too big. We can say the same about other aspects of our demography and human geography as well.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's not a war but English is always going to be seen as a threat. How can it not be given the demographics of the country we share, the continent and even global trends? The tough balancing act is to maintain the distinction between individual people and their language which is pretty much a natural predator for any other language. It's kind of like a "hate the sin but not the sinner" kind of thing.

Also, ROCers who don't live here may think certain things and respect or accept that Quebec is going to be French speaking but that doesn't always translate in terms of behaviour when many of them move here. It's also true of people from abroad, many of which are moving to "Canada, North America" which comes with the linguistic expectations and assumptions you can imagine.

It wasn't so much of an issue when Quebec wasn't seen as a desirable place to move to by most ROCers, but now that Montreal and even many parts of southern and western Quebec are increasingly popular with ROCers, it's a legitimate concern or challenge as to whether they are going to learn even a bit of French to live here - or not.

I don't know what to say other than that this is kind of how the world works. People bring their lived and learned cultures to wherever they move to, just as the basis for Quebec culture originated in France. In most places, as decades and generations roll by, parts of the basic cultures remain but the collective culture evolves into whatever it becomes, as people interrelate with others around whom they live. This becomes the actual culture of the city/province/country, and it's not static, but a constant evolution. Of course, some direction comes from levels of government, some driven by the people on a personal level, but it evolves.

Quebec seems to have a tendency to be more insular than most places/cultures, which (I think) makes it a bit of an outlier in Canada. Sure, there are some positives to the people who can trace their lineage back to France, but the idea that somebody from Taiwan, or Italy, or Chile should have to learn the French language or somehow try to adopt Quebec's culture as their own seems a little twisted in the context of society in the twenty-first century. Even then, I completely understand it on a personal level - we all want to promote that which we personally hold dear, but in Quebec it is taken to another level of being institutionalized, which again seems odd to me, personally.

Good discussion. I know that none of this will change the world, but the exchange of ideas is always educational (for me, anyhow)...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't know... it just feels a little weird to be continually reading that 'us vs them' attitude that seems to indicate that there is still some kind of debt that has to be paid for something that another country did 200+ years ago during periods of war that resulted in the developing of Canada. Most of the rest of us seem to feel that this is ancient history and it's time to move on - the war is over, we now have a great and strong country that goes further than most in recognizing and being respectful of the various cultures, the two most prominent of which are Indigenous and French (which includes the Quebecois with all the accents). And yet you are still talking about separation as if it's a cycle that should come up every decade or so until the argument is compelling enough to go through with it.
.

I am having trouble digesting these "forget about the past, look to the future" statements when we're being aggressively sold the exact opposite when it comes to Indigenous issues, and also to some degree when it comes to other minority groups like Black Canadians, etc.

(Not saying this is you - but it's a pretty dominant theme these days.)

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think Canada's been quite lucky so far with this. For starters lucky that the resources and economic potential of the country are disproportionately high relative to the number of people who live here. A mostly prosperous population is a really good stabilizing factor, and diminishes tensions among diverse groups.

Also the relative sizes of the forces that are in tension with each other leads to a kind of edgy but fairly stable balance. Anglo-Canada is still big enough to dominate but not so much as to be able to bully Quebec into submission. Quebec is big enough to be a pretty effective counterweight but still not too big. We can say the same about other aspects of our demography and human geography as well.

I think the lack of population dispersion helps too. It's not as if the 25% of the country that speaks French is spread evenly across that country. It's massively concentrated in a pocket that conveniently has some powers of government already devolved to the province.

However, I am still of the opinion that the internal pressures of both English and French-speaking Canada far outweigh the conflict between them at this juncture and for the foreseeable future.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't know what to say other than that this is kind of how the world works. People bring their lived and learned cultures to wherever they move to, just as the basis for Quebec culture originated in France. In most places, as decades and generations roll by, parts of the basic cultures remain but the collective culture evolves into whatever it becomes, as people interrelate with others around whom they live. This becomes the actual culture of the city/province/country, and it's not static, but a constant evolution. Of course, some direction comes from levels of government, some driven by the people on a personal level, but it evolves.
.

I think the point in Quebec is that people want to have a say in how their society evolves. Contrary to how it's often portrayed in the ROC, Quebec is not anti-evolution at all. But every place evolves at its own pace following its own norms. That's what Quebec wants.

This is the case in a place like Toronto as well BTW. It just happens more subtly because the power relationships there are more well established and defined.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I think the lack of population dispersion helps too. It's not as if the 25% of the country that speaks French is spread evenly across that country. It's massively concentrated in a pocket that conveniently has some powers of government already devolved to the province.

.

Very true.

If a quarter of Canadians are francophone but they aren't a majority in any province, everything is different.

Likewise if for some reason history veers off in another direction and New Brunswick and Manitoba end up being mainly francophone today (and maybe Ontario is around one-fifth francophone) then that's a game-changer as well.

Under alt-history, Montreal as a majority anglophone city (as it was for about 10 years in the mid-1800s) surrounded by a mostly French Quebec (à la Brussels vs. Flanders) would also have made a Canada a very different country.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Quebec seems to have a tendency to be more insular than most places/cultures, which (I think) makes it a bit of an outlier in Canada. (...) Even then, I completely understand it on a personal level - we all want to promote that which we personally hold dear, but in Quebec it is taken to another level of being institutionalized, which again seems odd to me, personally...

Quebec isn't really a global (or even a "western") outlier by any stretch of the imagination.

Though yes it's at odds with the way things are seen in the ROC. Or at least for Anglo-Canada. Indigenous communities are a different, but people seldom talk about that in polite circles.

But when it comes to Anglo-Canada, this is only because everything has historically and even contemporaneously been put in place in Anglo-Canada for the same outcome (as what Quebec desires) to occur.

Anglo culture generally frowns upon what one might call "social engineering", ie the preference is to let society evolve on its own without trying to steer things in one direction or another. But one of the main reasons for this legendary "openness" is the confidence - borne out by historical experience - that things will always naturally evolve in a direction that favours the majority and its preferences.

And of course let's not mention everything that's been put in place to "seed" the field in their favour.

When you know that things will almost naturally follow a course that favours you, it's easy to let things play out as they will.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by dleung

^^What happened to "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" lol. Surely you are pro-merit and against artificial quotas for black architects or chinese basketball players, or legislated multiculturalism

In a typically Canadian manner, this statement should read "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, but with some qualification."

The principle qualifications are linguistic (especially if you live in Quebec, and to a lesser degree NB), and whether or not you are aboriginal (which may give you some treaty rights not available to other Canadians).

In other words, not all Canadians are absolutely equal, and probably never will be. Certainly if you are a bilingual Canadian, especially of pur laine Quebec stock, you will probably be considered "more equal" than a unilingual anglophone fisherman from NS.

But, it is what it is. This is one of the compromises necessary for nation building, and to maintain peace and decorum within the federation.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think the point in Quebec is that people want to have a say in how their society evolves.

Isn't there a lot of freedom for people in Quebec to do what they want? I'm open to the idea of Quebec being an independent country but the biggest reasons why this seems far-fetched right now are (1) there are few well-articulated, powerful examples of things that Quebec residents want that other Canadians are preventing them from implementing and (2) it's objectively not popular with the electorate as a concept right now.

I think the reality is we have a lot of somewhat arbitrary post-colonial national boundaries but, well, we're in an imperfect world and there is a big advantage to stability. The best strategy so far has been to allow personal freedoms (like freedom of movement). The ethnostates have not worked out very well. Even if Quebec is no more similar to Ontario than New England (I'm skeptical of this given the centuries of co-evolution), it wouldn't really be that unusual or intractable. To me the biggest "problem" in North America is the messed up Canada-US border, not Quebec.

I agree that there's a double standard regarding Quebec and the history of French Canada, certainly on SSP (which has all kinds of biases and is sometimes quite out there), and to some degree in the wider country at large. For wider society I think a lot of it is plain old ignorance, related in large part to the fact that French Canada doesn't significantly figure into American media sources that English speaking Canadians tend to consume. At a more abstract level, most progressive Americans these days are protective of linguistic minorities, like Spanish speakers (nor would a typical person in Boston or SF rant about how Haitian Creole is a degenerate version of French!). The idea that French language protection is a bunch of Karens who are made about 7-Up is, I think, an SSPism divorced from wider culture/reality.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

However, I am still of the opinion that the internal pressures of both English and French-speaking Canada far outweigh the conflict between them at this juncture and for the foreseeable future.

Such as?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Certainly if you are a bilingual Canadian, especially of pur laine Quebec stock, you will probably be considered "more equal" than a unilingual anglophone fisherman from NS.
.

That's certainly not the way things are seen in Quebec. Though I guess this fact probably explains a bit of the Canadian conundrum in a nutshell.

I think you tinkered with the variables a bit by adding that the Québécois person is bilingual.

If you made the anglo NS fisherman bilingual, doesn't that change things too?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

but the idea that somebody from Taiwan, or Italy, or Chile should have to learn the French language or somehow try to adopt Quebec's culture as their own seems a little twisted in the context of society in the twenty-first century.

As I mentioned earlier, it's extremely easy to take that position when one knows that even in the total absence of visible coercion (although there is a tremendous amount of subtle coercion), people from Taiwan or Chile or Italy who settle in Halifax will without exception all learn English and adopt to local cultural norms at least to a reasonably acceptable degree, no matter what.

[Jimmy Nimby]

If someone created a thread called “Ontario, the English Language, and Ontarian Identity” do you think it would be deleted? (Hint: I did, and it was). This site has become an echo chamber where the moderators and the main contributors are the same people.

[MolsonExport]

Just for the record, Kellogg's (Canada) was based in London (Ontario), and their sole factory was in the said city. It shuttered about 8 years ago, and has moved production to Thailand.
https://london.ctvnews.ca/timeline-k...ndon-1.1583591

People that complain about bilingual packaging are idiots. People that complain about people that complain about bilingual packaging are wasting their time on losers who represent a comparatively small and shrinking component of the population (likewise for those that complain about having to speak French in a French-speaking province..no duh!). People have largely moved on. The fat English sales lady at Eaton's died many years ago.

Unfortunately, one cannot say the same about bigotry towards (other) ethnic minorities, which, after apparently declining for decades, has been rising substantially. But somehow this keeps getting dismissed as trivial. By the very same people that complain about people that complain about bilingual packaging.