Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Tinkering with borders based on ethnicity is extremely dangerous and perilous, in addition to being covered by the Canadian Constitution: the borders of a province can't be changed without its consent. Of course, Quebec loses that privilege when it ceases to be a province of Canada.

Jacques Parizeau used to say: before independence, it's unconstitutional, and after independence, it's too late.

That's not completely accurate, as borders would almost certainly be a topic for discussion during negotiations. How far they would go I am not sure.

Not sure that Clarendon or even the Pontiac region would be top of mind in those discussions, regardless.

I doubt there will much adjustment of borders in a secession scenario but an extreme example like Rapides-des-Joachimes could be the exception.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

How do these assimilated people feel about Québec and Québec issues? Do they have the same negative attitudes ("Québécois are racists, they ban the veil", "Québec government is oppressing the English language", etc) as other Anglo-Canadians, or do they have a different, more positive outlook on Québec?

The vast majority of Franco-Ontarians where I live are very secular similar to what you see in Quebec. I've never heard anyone here complain about what the Quebec government has done regarding secularism. In fact, I don't think that many pay attention to the issue. Quebec is often seen as a separate society to them so they have normally been critical only of issues of nationalism and independence in Quebec. As for religious clothing, most do not like it when it is gender-based and intended to make being female an issue from my observations and experiences. But francophones in Ontario are a small minority overall and have never brought forward those types of issues as far as I've seen.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It should be noted that surnames only really say what your "paternal line" is. One dad's dad's dad's dad's dad is only 3.125% of their ancestry but accounts for 100% of their surname. You can have someone who is maybe 5% French in ethnic origin with a surname like Charlebois; or conversely have someone who is 75% French in ethnic origin whose surname is Smith.

Another factor is that surnames can.. change. There are some people who in fact have a francophone paternal line but whose surnames are not French, because some ancestor made the choice to change their name to hide their origins. That actually describes me, personally. My paternal line great-great grandfather was francophone but anglicized his name when he married a British woman.

The changing of names is always interesting. I've seen examples of it even in Timmins. One family name here is Spooner. There are a number of families with that name and but for most of them the name was originally Lécuyer or L'Ecuyer from what I've been told.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

The changing of names is always interesting. I've seen examples of it even in Timmins. One family name here is Spooner. There are a number of families with that name and but for most of them the name was originally Lécuyer or L'Ecuyer from what I've been told.

Cuillerrier I'd say.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Cuillerrier I'd say.

Yes! Thanks. That's the main one I totally forgot to mention. That's what Wilf Spooner who was a provincial cabinet minister from here during the 1960s was.

But there are some Spooner families here who were Lecuyer in the past. One is my neighbour.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Yes! Thanks. That's the main one I totally forgot to mention. That's what Wilf Spooner who was a provincial cabinet minister from here during the 1960s was.

But there are some Spooner families here who were Lecuyer in the past. One is my neighbour.

Not sure why they'd go from Lécuyer to Spooner, as an écuyer is like a stablemaster. I'd translate it as Squire.

Maybe it's because the "cuy" sound is similar to that in "cuillère".

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In France, the battle is basically over. In Canada, it isn't.

There was never much of a battle to start with. The only place where there was a battle was Flanders, but the Allies took away most of Flanders from France in 1815, so after that it was a Belgo-Belgian story. I often wonder what would have happened if Belgium had remained part of France. Perhaps the Flemish "départements" would have rebelled against the French language. Who knows.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

in addition to being covered by the Canadian Constitution: the borders of a province can't be changed without its consent. Of course, Quebec loses that privilege when it ceases to be a province of Canada.

Yeah, but the 'uti possidetis' principle of international law then takes over. The border is NOT going to be modified.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Yes! Thanks. That's the main one I totally forgot to mention. That's what Wilf Spooner who was a provincial cabinet minister from here during the 1960s was.

But there are some Spooner families here who were Lecuyer in the past. One is my neighbour.

What about if your family name is Couillard? How do you transform that into English?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yeah, but the 'uti possidetis' principle of international law then takes over. The border is NOT going to be modified.

"International law" is meaningless. As with every other decision made between countries, the border issue will be decided by geopolitical considerations.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

What about if your family name is Couillard? How do you transform that into English?

Balls.

Like former British politician Ed Balls.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

"International law" is meaningless. As with every other decision made between countries, the border issue will be decided by geopolitical considerations.

Justin Trudeau's Canada breaking international law?

I cannot conceive of any scenario under which the US (except maybe if some ultra-Trumpists took over Congress) or Europe could accept a modification of border and dropping the 'uti possidetis' principle. And I don't think Ottawa would accept to become a world pariah...

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Balls.

Like former British politician Ed Balls.

Ok... What about Cosnard?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not sure why they'd go from Lécuyer to Spooner, as an écuyer is like a stablemaster. I'd translate it as Squire.

Squire comes from French 'escuyer', now spelled 'écuyer' after we stopped pronouncing the s in the Renaissance era. It's one of those many words of French origin in English. As Clemenceau used to say: English is "du français mal prononcé" ("some badly pronounced form of French").

In Ancien Régime France, "écuyer" was a title appended to a name to inform that the person was a nobleman, exempt from taxation. Same usage in England, but later due to snobbishness many people started to use the title "squire" even when they were not aristocrats, and it became used by legal professions in particular (which was never the case in France: the legal professions in France used the title "Maître", i.e. "Master", abbreviated as Me). "Ecuyer" stopped being used in France with the Revolution. It suddenly disappears from all official documents in 1789.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Squire comes from French 'escuyer', now spelled 'écuyer' after we stopped pronouncing the s in the Renaissance era. It's one of those many words of French origin in English. As Clemenceau used to say: English is "du français mal prononcé" ("some badly pronounced form of French").

You still see that old spelling here in many surnames.

Lévesque
Laforest
Duchesne
Rivest
Beauchesne
Genest
Courchesne
Dufresne
Duchesneau
Charest

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yeah, but the 'uti possidetis' principle of international law then takes over. The border is NOT going to be modified.

Does that apply in non-colonial situations? I would have thought the Czech/Slovak experience would be more relevant.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Does that apply in non-colonial situations?

Of course. It was applied when the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia collapsed. Only the likes of Putin or Milosevic don't respect that principle. I doubt Justin Trudeau or whoever is Canadian prime minister when the day comes wants to rank among the likes of Putin/Milosevic...

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Of course. It was applied when the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia collapsed. Only the likes of Putin or Milosevic don't respect that principle. I doubt Justin Trudeau or whoever is Canadian prime minister when the day comes wants to rank among the likes of Putin/Milosevic...

As I said, the Czech/Slovak case offers a better analogy. In any event, much of Quebec's border within Canada is logical (or, in the case of Labrador well settled in law), but there are areas of doubt. Offshore jurisdiction would be even less clear.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yeah, but the 'uti possidetis' principle of international law then takes over. The border is NOT going to be modified.

I'm afraid 1995 wants it's theory back. The border would be demarcated based on the desire of those living in each region to be modified and their willingness to fight for it and the willingness of more powerful entities to help them. Hard to see Anglo enclaves kicking up much storm but more likely would be northern areas where Indigenous areas who would be able to claim a huge amount of Quebec's hydro resources. They might be emboldened to fight for it and they would have much more success dragging Canada into protecting them than rich Anglos would.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I'm afraid 1995 wants it's theory back. The border would be demarcated based on the desire of those living in each region to be modified and their willingness to fight for it and the willingness of more powerful entities to help them. Hard to see Anglo enclaves kicking up much storm but more likely would be northern areas where Indigenous areas who would be able to claim a huge amount of Quebec's hydro resources. They might be emboldened to fight for it and they would have much more success dragging Canada into protecting them than rich Anglos would.

Just another assumption, just like assuming the present borders are sacrosanct.