Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

And yet the two youngest leaders out of of Quebec's five major parties are the ones who are separatists.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And yet the two youngest leaders out of of Quebec's five major parties are the ones who are separatists.

As usual, younger people are less risk-adverse to change, while older people are more cautious and don't like change. That's why I've never bought into the argument "Québec separatism is going to die out with the death of the baby boomers". In fact, the death of a large cohort of old voters may make the overall electorate less risk-adverse, because it will be a younger electorate overall.

[OldDartmouthMark]

But it’s also been said in this thread that the younger people don’t care so much about separation, so maybe it’s a ‘wait and see’ deal.

It sounds like something that’s easy to talk about but difficult to do, with much risk involved, and not a high degree of interest among the bulk of the population. Pragmatically, I don’t see any huge benefits, except for the emotional satisfaction of sticking it to the anglos. Maybe that’s worth it?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

But it’s also been said in this thread that the younger people don’t care so much about separation, so maybe it’s a ‘wait and see’ deal.

It sounds like something that’s easy to talk about but difficult to do, with much risk involved, and not a high degree of interest among the bulk of the population. Pragmatically, I don’t see any huge benefits, except for the emotional satisfaction of sticking it to the anglos. Maybe that’s worth it?

The truth is that Canada is not particularly well-governed at the present time and the federation is increasingly dysfunctional. The federal government used to be tangibly better managed than the provinces on average but this is no longer the case. (Not saying the provinces are fantastically managed - just that the bar has become lower for everyone.)

Alberta is pissed off about a bunch of things, so is Saskatchewan. Ontario is increasingly self-absorbed and less likely than ever to put "water in its wine" (bad translation from French) in order to keep peace in the federation.

So it's not just about Quebec though of course here there is also an ethno-cultural dimension added as top layer to any dissatisfaction with Canada.

[Acajack]

As for young people in Quebec yes it is true they are not particularly interested in independence but on the other hand most aren't really turned on by Canadian patriotism or the country's overall identity either. There is no anger towards Canada (or even anglos, at least not that much) like there was 40-50 years ago, but there isn't any passion there either.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

But it’s also been said in this thread that the younger people don’t care so much about separation

Don't care about separation doesn't mean would vote NON in a referendum. Feeling unconcerned by the issue of independence doesn't mean being a Canadian federalist.

Young people tend to feel attracted to bold, romantic ideas (see all the craze around Greta Thunberg in Europe), so I can very well imagine a young, charismatic pro-independence leader stirring them to vote OUI. See Scotland where the younger electorate voted more in favor of independence than the older electorate (with the exception of college students as already mentioned).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Pragmatically, I don’t see any huge benefits, except for the emotional satisfaction of sticking it to the anglos.

Here I think you are very wrong (about the 2nd part of your sentence). I read Québec newspaper often, and this idea of "sticking it to the Anglos" is simply not there. It was maybe true in the 1960s and 1970s when they were getting rid of Anglo domination in Montréal businesses and whatnot, but the days of Anglo dominance in Québec are long in the past now, and don't stir anyone today (or very few people).

What I read usually (in pro-independence op-eds, etc) is a desire to "assert" one's identity, be proud to be Francophone in one's own Francophone country. I never read anything about the "Anglos". It's a nationalism that is not defined in opposition to something else. It was maybe in the 1970s, but I don't see that today.

[Acajack]

I am not sure we will even have a Referendum III at any point, and lots of things can change including the forces that would come to the table for the Oui and the Non side, but right now it's very interesting to think who would be on the Non side and how passionately and convincingly they would be able to defend Canada. The pickings are really slim, I have to say.

But of course, even if Referendum III happens it's likely several years away and the players will have changed. Still not obvious to me how strong a Non leadership team would be, though.

And of course we probably wouldn't get a love-in this time.

https://www.facebook.com/ArchivesRadioCa...bre-1995/10154696067756052/?locale=fr_CA

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And of course we probably wouldn't get a love-in this time.

Oh, I think you would. Of course in the beginning of the referendum campaign Anglo-Canada would be saying they are sick and tired of those Québécois spoiled children, and how this time they can expect no favor from Ottawa, and if they want independence, fine, let them have it, but it will be harsh and they should assume all the cost, and bla bla bla... but in the last weeks of the campaign as the polls would forecast a 50-50 result, or even a slim advance for the OUI, panic would suddenly set in in Ottawa, and they would frantically organize a new "love-in". Wanna bet?

[bobi]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

What, that separatists are dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs roamed the earth for over 150 million years. How old is the Canadian Dominion again?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by bobi

Dinosaurs roamed the earth for over 150 million years. How old is the Canadian Dominion again?

It's not dead like the dinosaurs, so we can't make a comparison yet.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

It's a nationalism that is not defined in opposition to something else.

However, by default if you are trying to create a state that only allows those like yourself to exist there, you are in opposition to all others occupying your space. If you think about it, 'sticking it to the anglos' is necessary to achieve your goal and I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that would not be a consideration of those involved.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The truth is that Canada is not particularly well-governed at the present time and the federation is increasingly dysfunctional. The federal government used to be tangibly better managed than the provinces on average but this is no longer the case. (Not saying the provinces are fantastically managed - just that the bar has become lower for everyone.)

Alberta is pissed off about a bunch of things, so is Saskatchewan. Ontario is increasingly self-absorbed and less likely than ever to put "water in its wine" (bad translation from French) in order to keep peace in the federation.

So it's not just about Quebec though of course here there is also an ethno-cultural dimension added as top layer to any dissatisfaction with Canada.

Just my opinion, but I think if you filter out all the bluster and the noise, there is still a realization that we are better off as a family that doesn't always get along than splitting off as individuals who vow to never speak to one another again.

I dunno... from my perspective it is sure one heck of an interesting country, not in spite of our differences, but because of them...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I dunno... from my perspective it is sure one heck of an interesting country, not in spite of our differences, but because of them...

Pretty sure we all agree that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a more “interesting” country than Czechia is, or than Slovenia is, or than Croatia is, etc.

Most people would argue that the main point of a country isn’t to be as interesting as possible (“may you live in an interesting country”…) but rather, to be as functional, cohesive, stable as possible.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by lio45

Pretty sure we all agree that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a more “interesting” country than Czechia is, or than Slovenia is, or than Croatia is, etc.

Most people would argue that the main point of a country isn’t to be as interesting as possible (“may you live in an interesting country”…) but rather, to be as functional, cohesive, stable as possible.

In my opinion for Canada to be as functional, cohesive, and stable as possible Québec must remain in the country.

[MolsonExport]

.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

In my opinion for Canada to be as functional, cohesive, and stable as possible Québec must remain in the country.

There is a good chance this is true though a lot of Canadians don't realize that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Just my opinion, but I think if you filter out all the bluster and the noise, there is still a realization that we are better off as a family that doesn't always get along than splitting off as individuals who vow to never speak to one another again.
.

Who says we wouldn't ever speak to each other again if we were different countries?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Who says we wouldn't ever speak to each other again if we were different countries?

It's a divorce. Bad things happen in a divorce. I for one would refuse to ever step foot in Quebec territory ever again. The drive on US Route 2 through northern New England is actually quite pleasant. Not as fast or convenient as the A-20, but pleasant..............

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Pretty sure we all agree that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a more “interesting” country than Czechia is, or than Slovenia is, or than Croatia is, etc.

Most people would argue that the main point of a country isn’t to be as interesting as possible (“may you live in an interesting country”…) but rather, to be as functional, cohesive, stable as possible.

Canada isn't really that interesting to begin with. At least not to the point where it's arguably worth it to endure a high degree of operational dysfunction and tension just so we can fully savour all of that fascinating uniqueness of ours.

Much of what characterizes life in Canada is pastiched from the US, and stuff which is Canadian in origin has often been pastiched or usurped by the Americans as well.

We're not really more interesting than Australia even though we actually have more diversity than they do - this includes homegrown diversity that exists within Canada, but the effects of that on Canadian culture as a whole are minimal because much of what is unique and from here is pushed to the margins and mainstream Canada doesn't partake in that.