Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Not that anyone is suggesting this, but I strongly doubt that the US would attempt any form of hostile annexation of Canada or any parts of it.

Do they really need to make any part of our territory part of the US, either through a military invasion or even willing political union?

The very real possibility of keeping us as a vassal state that does their bidding is almost as good as having us part their union.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The first Continental Congress pre-approved Canada for entry into the union. There was no mention of this however in the second Continental Congress.

The Maritimes (and NL) might be able to make a good argument. Of course, if Trump succeeds on turning the US into a Republican fascist dictatorship, I imagine there would not be much desire on our part for entry into the republic.

The Maritimes has become much more linked to the rest of Canada and less linked to the US than previously. I guess when the border was much thinner the migration pattern was much different. Culturally all of Canada has diverged from the US it seems over the past few years though New England has maybe done the opposite it's Washington that matters for any integration.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Of course, if Trump succeeds on turning the US into a Republican fascist dictatorship, I imagine there would not be much desire on our part for entry into the republic.

Yes, I almost included an asterisked notation to this effect in my post.

It's interesting to consider that this sentiment would probably exist on both sides as well, unless Trump could perceive it as a "great deal" for the US...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not that anyone is suggesting this, but I strongly doubt that the US would attempt any form of hostile annexation of Canada or any parts of it.

Do they really need to make any part of our territory part of the US, either through a military invasion or even willing political union?

The very real possibility of keeping us as a vassal state that does their bidding is almost as good as having us part their union.

I was considering a mutual agreement in my post about Atlantic Canada. The alternative for them might be a struggling Atlantic Canada that could fall into hostile hands, that could then result in a strategic outpost to be used against the US.

Not that this would happen, either.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I was considering a mutual agreement in my post about Atlantic Canada. The alternative for them might be a struggling Atlantic Canada that could fall into hostile hands, that could then result in a strategic outpost to be used against the US.

Not that this would happen, either.

Even if Atlantic Canada were to go through a rough patch, no one would dare play around in the US' backyard like that.

The Monroe Doctrine lives on.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However, by default if you are trying to create a state that only allows those like yourself to exist there

So you mean Norway, where the official language is Norwegian, only allows "those like themselves" to exist there? Makes no sense!

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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

To be sure, Canada only exists because of the Francophone fact. Had there been no French Canadians, there would be no Canada, just a few more US states. It's doubtful the few British loyalists would have been able to resist US invasion in 1812.

On the other hand, if Québec seceded, I think Canada would continue to exist, out of "habitude" (la force de l'habitude), and also as a counter-reaction to losing a major part of itself. It would remain, like the Holy Roman Empire, even after it'd have lost its raison-d'être.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

So you mean Norway, where the official language is Norwegian, only allows "those like themselves" to exist there? Makes no sense!

I have virtually no knowledge of Norway (or other Scandinavian countries), so I can't confirm or deny. I didn't think knowledge of Norway was a prerequisite to discuss the Canadian situation...

If they were part of a larger entity that had two official languages, and then squeezed out the minority language, only allowing signage and official communication (i.e. government services, medical institutions, etc.) only in the majority language, then I'd say yes... they are 'sticking it to the native speakers of the former minority language'.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

No, Not silly. I am deadly serious on this. My Canada is strong, united and extends from sea, to sea, to sea. If the separatists piss on my country, dancing in the streets at the same time, then I would consider them enemies.

I do not consort with enemies.

Stay away from TV cameras during the next referendum campaign. You would boost the OUI vote.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even if Atlantic Canada were to go through a rough patch, no one would dare play around in the US' backyard like that.

The Monroe Doctrine lives on.

Cuba... (not saying that Atlantic Canada would have a revolution, but...)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Cuba... (not saying that Atlantic Canada would have a revolution, but...)

That was a looooooooooong time ago. And look what (almost) happened.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

To be sure, Canada only exists because of the Francophone fact. Had there been no French Canadians, there would be no Canada, just a few more US states. It's doubtful the few British loyalists would have been able to resist US invasion in 1812.

On the other hand, if Québec seceded, I think Canada would continue to exist, out of "habitude" (la force de l'habitude), and also as a counter-reaction to losing a major part of itself. It would remain, like the Holy Roman Empire, even after it'd have lost its raison-d'être.

Umm... pure conjecture.

One could say that if it weren't for the British colonies and the Americans, that France wouldn't exist today, but I can't say that either - you can't rewrite history by changing a couple of variables. (WWII reference, by the way).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That was a looooooooooong time ago. And look what (almost) happened.

History has a habit of repeating itself...

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In fairness, the ROC has probably served as a counterweight to Quebec's worst impulses on a few occasions as well!

Such as? Taxes to the hilt and socialism from cradle to grave?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I have virtually no knowledge of Norway (or other Scandinavian countries), so I can't confirm or deny. I didn't think knowledge of Norway was a prerequisite to discuss the Canadian situation...

If they were part of a larger entity that had two official languages, and then squeezed out the minority language, only allowing signage and official communication (i.e. government services, medical institutions, etc.) only in the majority language, then I'd say yes... they are 'sticking it to the native speakers of the former minority language'.

There is a key bit of missing context here in that all of the provinces (except Quebec of course) historically "stuck it" to their francophone populations, to the point where they are in most cases have been reduced to shadows of their former selves. (There are some exceptions like New Brunswick, but even there there are red lights on the dashboard.)

So even though all of the attention in the ROC is on Quebec being mean to its poor anglo minority, in Quebec people know the (far worse) history of francophones in other provinces so they're mostly unmoved by all of this crying.

And of course part of Quebec's resolve is all about avoiding what happened to the ROC's francophones, being done to them at some point in the future.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Such as? Taxes to the hilt and socialism from cradle to grave?

Our current PM's dad had some ideas on that.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/138618

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

History has a habit of repeating itself...

Sometimes, but in this case I have my doubts.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not that anyone is suggesting this, but I strongly doubt that the US would attempt any form of hostile annexation of Canada or any parts of it.

Do they really need to make any part of our territory part of the US, either through a military invasion or even willing political union?

The very real possibility of keeping us as a vassal state that does their bidding is almost as good as having us part their union.

Besides, beyond the already discusses issue of giving more weight to Democrats in Congress, which the Republicans would never accept, I think at a more fundamental level most Americans have become arch-conservatives with regard to their Constitution and their country. Today, removing "In God we trust" on US bills (which was put there only in 1964) would be angrily opposed by a large majority of Americans. And I think the idea of changing the map of the country, to which they are so used, by adding some weird northern extensions in the Maritimes and destroying the well known and well identified shape of the 48 contiguous states, would also be largely opposed out of sentimentalism.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

On the other hand, if Québec seceded, I think Canada would continue to exist, out of "habitude" (la force de l'habitude), and also as a counter-reaction to losing a major part of itself. It would remain, like the Holy Roman Empire, even after it'd have lost its raison-d'être.

Thanks for your half hearted and condescending vote of confidence Yuri. Say hi to Vladimir for me.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Our current PM's dad had some ideas on that.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/138618

First page starts with lots of fallacies. "French Canadians the only people in the world who enjoy democracy without having had to fight for it." Wrong. Ever heard of Japan for example? As for "before 1763 they had known only an authoritarian rule", what a stupid thing to say! 18th century France wasn't an "authoritarian" state! Sounds almost like what a conceited WASP from Boston would say.