Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by big T

For all the talk of “checking your privilege” these days, I would hope the difference between an amusing interlude from an otherwise unencumbered life in your language of choice vs. what likely was the umpteenth instance of not being served in / not receiving documentation in / having to switch from your officially and legally recognized native language just to go about your day/week/month, all the while paying top dollar with an explicit expectation of service, should be rather clear.

Now THAT was pretty good Vogon poetry.

[Acajack]

If I am paying first class out of my pocket from Montreal or Quebec City on a Canadian airline that is legally bound by official languages obligations, they'd sure as hell better be able to serve me in French.

[big T]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If I am paying first class out of my pocket from Montreal or Quebec City on a Canadian airline that is legally bound by official languages obligations, they'd sure as hell better be able to serve me in French.

It's the "get over it" that gets me.
Ops issues happen, but the only appropriate response is a contrite apology + a whole bunch of air moolah (or whatever they're called now).

@Nashe

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by big T

🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, on planes especially, but “get over it” is not typically an appropriate customer service response.

Well, "speak white!" is what French Canadians were told for generations by their Anglo (masters? fellow countrymen?), weren't they? It's ingrained in the minds of many English speakers I think.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Well, "speak white!" is what French Canadians were told for generations by their Anglo (masters? fellow countrymen?), weren't they? It's ingrained in the minds of many English speakers I think.

It actually wasn't that common, though my wife says a bus driver once said it to her, but this was in a city in Ontario.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It actually wasn't that common, though my wife says a bus driver once said it to her, but this was in a city in Ontario.

I've never witnessed this in person, but not surprising as it's not something I would have been exposed to.

I have to say, though, that the concept of that particular comment is completely ludicrous and really just shows the ignorance (and dare I say it... lack of intelligence) of the individual saying it. The fact that it was being done by a person in a position of power (the person in control of the bus in this case), would open them up to a legitimate complaint, if it were to happen today. With accompanying cell phone video, you could probably have him fired.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I've never witnessed this in person, but not surprising as it's not something I would have been exposed to.

I have to say, though, that the concept of that particular comment is completely ludicrous and really just shows the ignorance (and dare I say it... lack of intelligence) of the individual saying it. The fact that it was being done by a person in a position of power (the person in control of the bus in this case), would open them up to a legitimate complaint, if it were to happen today. With accompanying cell phone video, you could probably have him fired.

Contrary to popular opinion these days, I don't actually think that people were nastier to each other back in the days before everyone had recording devices in their hands.

In any event, so many people today have absolutely no filter and don't seem to care if they are being filmed or not.

[New Brisavoine]

So, there was an article in the Financial Times yesterday entitled "Why isn’t Canada an economic giant?", in which we find the following sentence:

Its leading cities, Calgary, Vancouver, and Toronto, are considered among the world’s best to live in.

Fascinating how for that journalist (Tej Parikh), Quebec is already not part of Canada anymore...

Also, the article never mentions Quebec or Francophone Québécois culture in the article. Reading the article, you'd think Canada is an entirely Anglo country. The journalist also says that crazy immigration intakes is good news for Canada, with zero regard for the consequences in terms of Anglo-Franco balance, and the sort of debate it triggers in a province that still represents more than 1/5th of Canada.

Fascinating really.

The article (behind a paywall): https://www.ft.com/content/67e97cc4-6ab0-4e78-b4a8-7c97b8e52ada

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

So, there was an article in the Financial Times yesterday entitled "Why isn’t Canada an economic giant?", in which we find the following sentence:

Fascinating how for that journalist (Tej Parikh), Quebec is already not part of Canada anymore...

Also, the article never mentions Quebec or Francophone Québécois culture in the article. Reading the article, you'd think Canada is an entirely Anglo country. The journalist also says that crazy immigration intakes is good news for Canada, with zero regard for the consequences in terms of Anglo-Franco balance, and the sort of debate it triggers in a province that still represents more than 1/5th of Canada.

Fascinating really.

The article (behind a paywall): https://www.ft.com/content/67e97cc4-6ab0-4e78-b4a8-7c97b8e52ada

Don't think a British journalist would have a good grasp of Canada's internal politics. They're peering from the outside across the pond.

[New Brisavoine]

That view is held throughout the world though. For most of the world, Canada is seen as essentially an Anglophone country. A sort of colder and less attractive version of Australia. Go on SSC (the forum competitor that shall not be named), and you'll see how all these Canada debates in which the European forumers participate treat Canada as an almost entirely Anglophone country. Francophone culture is totally ignored.

I think it's only France and the other Francophone countries who see Canada as ALSO a Francophone country. For the rest of the world, Canada is Anglo. But to the point of even forgetting to mention Montréal in a list of major Canadian cities, I thought that was over the top.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

That view is held throughout the world though. For most of the world, Canada is seen as essentially an Anglophone country. A sort of colder and less attractive version of Australia. Go on SSC (the forum competitor that shall not be named), and you'll see how all these Canada debates in which the European forumers participate treat Canada as an almost entirely Anglophone country. Francophone culture is totally ignored.

I think it's only France and the other Francophone countries who see Canada as ALSO a Francophone country. For the rest of the world, Canada is Anglo. But to the point of even forgetting to mention Montréal in a list of major Canadian cities, I thought that was over the top.

It's not that they forgot to mention Montreal, it's that Montreal doesn't appear on the top 10 places to live list that the article takes the comment from. Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto do. Seems pretty straightforward.

[New Brisavoine]

The journalist wrote "its leading cities". If he hadn't forgotten Montréal he would have written "three of its four leading cities", or "most of its leading cities". He deliberately wrote "its leading cities". I think the conclusion is pretty straightforward.

I don't even think it was conscious on his part. He probably wrote this without even thinking of Montréal, which is quite telling. No one would write an article about Spain saying "its leading cities, Madrid, Valencia, and Seville".

[lio45]

From the point of view of the massive importation of South Asian Indentured Servants (which is THE phenomenon of the times), it’s normal to talk of “Canada’s cities” as Toronto and Vancouver.

It’s like saying that the USA’s main cities are NYC, Miami and Philly — which would be okay in an article about Puerto Ricans.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The journalist wrote "its leading cities". If he hadn't forgotten Montréal he would have written "three of its four leading cities", or "most of its leading cities". He deliberately wrote "its leading cities". I think the conclusion is pretty straightforward.

I don't even think it was conscious on his part. He probably wrote this without even thinking of Montréal, which is quite telling. No one would write an article about Spain saying "its leading cities, Madrid, Valencia, and Seville".

I guess it would depend on your criteria for "leading" - for size of population or size of economy, add Montreal. For quality of life, Ottawa is ahead of Montreal, according to Mercers.

But yes, it may be that he didn't even think of Montreal. Happens.

[esquire]

OK, but what about the column itself and the main point that it makes? "As long as current trends in productivity continue, living standards will drop and Canada’s enormous economic potential will remain latent..."

I'm sure if it was a CBC article it would make specific reference to all of the relevant identity groups. But people from outside of Canada aren't going to be as worried about those kinds of sensitivities.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by esquire

OK, but what about the column itself and the main point that it makes? "As long as current trends in productivity continue, living standards will drop and Canada’s enormous economic potential will remain latent..."

One commentator seems to have summed up everything:

Canada was perfectly poised to achieve American industry, British politics and French culture.

It ended up getting American culture, British industry and French politics.

[elly63]

The Champions, Part 1: Unlikely Warriors
The Champions, Part 2: Trappings of Power
The Champions, Part 3: The Final Battle

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

That view is held throughout the world though. For most of the world, Canada is seen as essentially an Anglophone country. A sort of colder and less attractive version of Australia. Go on SSC (the forum competitor that shall not be named), and you'll see how all these Canada debates in which the European forumers participate treat Canada as an almost entirely Anglophone country. Francophone culture is totally ignored.

I think it's only France and the other Francophone countries who see Canada as ALSO a Francophone country. For the rest of the world, Canada is Anglo. But to the point of even forgetting to mention Montréal in a list of major Canadian cities, I thought that was over the top.

It's not surprising. Outside of Western Europe, many people don't know of the Flemish-French divide in Belgium, or the French-German-Italian divide in Switzerland. If you were to interview a random person in Shanghai, Houston or Tokyo they would probably have a hard time pinpointing what the official language(s) of Belgium and Switzerland are, and the founding cultural groups that make up their nation.

Like Switzerland and Belgium, Canada often is just an afterthought. Like how many Europeans are shocked you can't drive from Vancouver to Toronto in a day.

[Acajack]

In fairness a lot of francophonie people around the world (including in France) tend to greatly overestimate how francophone Canada is, often mistaking Québec's demographics as if they were reflective of Canada: mostly francophone but with an anglophone minority component.

[P'tit Renard]

^ One upside surprise for the French who overestimate the prevalence of French in the ROC, and decides to try out Toronto for a change of scenery .. gets rewarded a hefty bilingual bonus for native french language skills in the private sector that's been common since COVID. I've heard from SO and friends it has been in the range of $10-30K added to base salary (dependent on position and title), which is a pretty hefty premium given that they wouldn't get to access such a bonus if they were recruiting in Montreal.