Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

No, you're confusing me and Churchill. He was the one who used the word "race" (although he spoke of an "English race", not of an "Anglo-Saxon race").

This is typical of the word salad served up to create some kind of narrative. Taking a comment from another time using vernacular not common in today’s communication and translating it to be taken literally like a current buzzword.

Nice try but lacking a little in the execution.

FWIW, if it weren’t for Churchill you would probably be arguing that Canadians should be speaking German, the language of the master race! Maybe you should be treating Mr. Churchill with a little more respect?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This is typical of the word salad served up to create some kind of narrative. Taking a comment from another time using vernacular not common in today’s communication and translating it to be taken literally like a current buzzword.

Nice try but lacking a little in the execution.

FWIW, if it weren’t for Churchill you would probably be arguing that Canadians should be speaking German, the language of the master race! Maybe you should be treating Mr. Churchill with a little more respect?

When der Fuehrer says we ist de master race,
We heil (pffft) heil (pffft) right in der Fuehrer's face!

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I can assure you in Europe it's perfectly standard and normal to comment on each other's countries. People don't take offense at it (at least not since 1945), and accept that "foreigners" (which is a word eschewed in Europe now) can be quite knowledgeable about their own country too. It's just bizarre that Canadians don't accept comments or inputs from "foreigners". One of these many Canadian quirks that I've discovered on online forums and which we in Europe do not suspect (Canadians are usually seen as super relaxed, anti-nationalist, progressist, almost workist types in Europe, not defensive, prickly, chauvinist types).

Lol this is not the only online forum where Canadians converse in. It’s also not like the comments made by you are not being “accepted.” It’s just that the people actually inhabiting the country seem to disagree with a lot of the points you make. Maybe it’s because you’re foreign, but it could also be that you’re not as educated about the country as you’d like to believe.

And btw even if it’s normal for people in Europe to comment about other countries, it does not make those comments immune to criticism. Whenever I make comments about European countries in other websites I’m usually met with the same rhetoric that I don’t know shit about their country. So why should you expect your comments which primarily delve into the fragmentation of Canada not be met without some sort of criticism? Especially when you make sweeping generalizations such as the one made in the last sentence of your post based on having a discussion with just a few Canadians who have some spare time to give you same nasty chirps with their keyboards.

[Acajack]

This is the Quebec and French language thread.

How much strong disagreement is there really with what New Brisavoine says from the Canadians on here who actually inhabit Quebec and speak French?

(Not saying I agree with everything and it's true he gets some things wrong but he is far from being an ignorant commentator. He also says stuff you can hear from tons of Québécois every single day.)

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by thewave46

As for Quebec, the tension between Quebec and Anglo-Canada is one of the defining aspects of the country. I might go as far as to say it's a necessary one for both sides - a team of 'Yes Men' never produced greatness.

I like this. Sum of the parts greater than the whole and all that. Maybe it keeps us all grounded, having a counterbalance. I can't imagine Canada without Quebec, and I can't imagine a Quebec without the French language.
Is it an "efficient" way to run a country? Probably not, but efficiency is overrated. I can buy puff pastry at the grocery store or I can make it by hand (have done both) and the latter was far more satisfying and the ingredients more "authentic".

[MolsonExport]

It is pointless to engage with a troll that has an axa to grind.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

It is pointless to engage with a troll that has an axa to grind.

A troll with no skin in the game either. He can agitate for dissolution of the confederation and not deal with the fallout or economic consequences. He can simply sit back in his chair in Paris and chortle with glee over the misery in Canada. Good for New Brisavione.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Someone's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter. Guess why the Amerindians attacked more the English settlements than the French settlements (which were largely at peace with the Indians after the 1701 Great Peace of Montréal)... The Amerindians must surely have had their reasons, right?

“Amerindians” is kind of a cringeworthy term, but beyond that you didn’t understand my point.

The Mi'kmaq people made a deal with the French, becoming, essentially, French soldiers. So of course they attacked English settlements, why wouldn’t they? I would also offer that the Mi'kmaqs didn’t like any settlers invading their territory so if the French had actually been winning the war and had control of Halifax, they would have received the same treatment.

The point of my post, though, was to say that the modern indigenous groups are telling a twisted, one-sided version of history that evokes sympathy and anger among those who are ignorant to history as it has been known for generations. Not unlike what you like to do in this thread.

FWIW, I think that the indigenous peoples have been mistreated in Canada and deserve to be treated fairly by reconciliation. I just resent the methods of using misinformation to accomplish their goals.

However I can also appreciate how when things appear to be irreconcilable, that disadvantaged groups might feel it necessary to do whatever they can, even if it involves dishonesty, which is how I imagine you must feel with the unbalanced way that you portray ’anglos’ in your posts. I feel sorry for you, actually.

[MolsonExport]

^great post.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

“Amerindians” is kind of a cringeworthy term, but beyond that you didn’t understand my point.
.

In fairness, the words we are supposed to use for Indigenous people are a bit of a moving target that is hard to follow, and even we residents of Canada sometimes lose track of what we're supposed to say.

"Amérindien" is still used fairly regularly in common speech here in French-speaking Canada, even if "Autochtone" is the current accepted term.

Even those with the best (assumed) intentions can sometimes be behind in their terminology: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The Mi'kmaq people made a deal with the French, becoming, essentially, French soldiers. So of course they attacked English settlements, why wouldn’t they? I would also offer that the Mi'kmaqs didn’t like any settlers invading their territory so if the French had actually been winning the war and had control of Halifax, they would have received the same treatment.

The point of my post, though, was to say that the modern indigenous groups are telling a twisted, one-sided version of history that evokes sympathy and anger among those who are ignorant to history as it has been known for generations. Not unlike what you like to do in this thread.

FWIW, I think that the indigenous peoples have been mistreated in Canada and deserve to be treated fairly by reconciliation. I just resent the methods of using misinformation to accomplish their goals.

However I can also appreciate how when things appear to be irreconcilable, that disadvantaged groups might feel it necessary to do whatever they can, even if it involves dishonesty, which is how I imagine you must feel with the unbalanced way that you portray ’anglos’ in your posts. I feel sorry for you, actually.

I think you're right on many points, though this is a very frank take on the contemporary strategy of Indigenous activism that isn't commonly heard in Canada, or at least one that people don't feel free to share in polite company.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In fairness, the words we are supposed to use for Indigenous people are a bit of a moving target that is hard to follow, and even we residents of Canada sometimes lose track of what we're supposed to say.

"Amérindien" is still used fairly regularly in common speech here in French-speaking Canada, even if "Autochtone" is the current accepted term.

Even those with the best (assumed) intentions can sometimes be behind in their terminology: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/

I normally am not part of the PC police, but the term "indian" seems so out of touch (and has been for awhile) for describing indigenous in the anglo world, I felt compelled to mention it. I didn't realize it was still widely used by francophones.

I appreciate the context - it's these little bits of cultural knowledge that one might never know about without this type of discussion.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I normally am not part of the PC police, but the term "indian" seems so out of touch (and has been for awhile) for describing indigenous in the anglo world, I felt compelled to mention it. I didn't realize it was still widely used by francophones.

I appreciate the context - it's these little bits of cultural knowledge that one might never know about without this type of discussion.

"Indien" for Indigenous people is also passé as a term in French-speaking Canada, but I don't think that if you use it people would get the pitchforks out here in the same way that they would in Anglo-Canada.

My guess is that even in the Anglosphere it's probably not outside the realm of possibility to have quite a few British or Irish people refer to Indigenous people of the Americas as "Indians" or "American Indians".

Then there is this:

https://americanindian.si.edu/

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think you're right on many points, though this is a very frank take on the contemporary strategy of Indigenous activism that isn't commonly heard in Canada, or at least one that people don't feel free to share in polite company.

Hopefully I'm not stating it too frankly, and to be fair it's a tactic being used by many activists nowadays. I only used the Cornwallis example because it's a history with which I am familiar and it causes me to cringe everytime I hear the 'activist version' of it.

I do empathize, however, and don't really care what they do with the Cornwallis name or statue. There's a little bit of political theatre there to be sure, but overall if the result is a step forward towards the goal of mutual understanding and making people feel better, then it can be nothing but a good thing. The past can't be changed and acts that have been done can't be reversed, so the hope is that we can all move forward in a hopefully better world of acceptance and understanding.

Sorry for the tangent away from Quebec issues, BTW.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I normally am not part of the PC police, but the term "indian" seems so out of touch (and has been for awhile) for describing indigenous in the anglo world, I felt compelled to mention it. I didn't realize it was still widely used by francophones.

I appreciate the context - it's these little bits of cultural knowledge that one might never know about without this type of discussion.

I mean the word is still used in our constitution in English. And Non-status Indian is still the accepted term even if status Indian isn't.

It is for sure out of touch but not deeply so. The French language tends to hold on to these words longer. There is a word for black people that also makes Anglophones cringe. You'll also see kids dress up as Indians and the like as well in Quebec. Judgmental Anglophone Canada loves to focus on symbols but I'm not sure reconciliation has meant much tangible anywhere in Canada.

[Acajack]

Mark, I thought about this issue when I was preparing my response to you.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10116201/spec...minalizing-residential-school-denialism/

Keeping in mind that some people in recent years have written opinion pieces saying that the creators of the residential school system had good intentions and thought they were doing those kids a favour. (While generally acknowledging that the end result was tragic and horrible.)

There is also the matter of whether evidence of human remains has actually been found at the former school location in Kamloops and other places that have been searched.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Mark, I thought about this issue when I was preparing my response to you.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10116201/spec...minalizing-residential-school-denialism/

Keeping in mind that some people in recent years have written opinion pieces saying that the creators of the residential school system had good intentions and thought they were doing those kids a favour. (While generally acknowledging that the end result was tragic and horrible.)

There is also the matter of whether evidence of human remains has actually been found at the former school location in Kamloops and other places that have been searched.

Is there any argument the architects of the system didn't have good intentions? I mean assimilation can be considered negative intentions but certainly at that time it was considered the ultimate end goal.

I am not sure why the human remains question is so hotly debated. The mass grave thing was obviously ridiculous. There is no question people died at residential schools. As kids did at high rates generally 100 years ago. The catholic zealot schools would almost certainly have buried them with a wooden cross which of course would not still be standing.

I am curious how these issues are discussed in Quebec?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Is there any argument the architects of the system didn't have good intentions? I mean assimilation can be considered negative intentions but certainly at that time it was considered the ultimate end goal.

I am not sure why the human remains question is so hotly debated. The mass grave thing was obviously ridiculous. There is no question people died at residential schools. As kids did at high rates generally 100 years ago. The catholic zealot schools would almost certainly have buried them with a wooden cross which of course would not still be standing.

Again, these are atypical and even controversial views in 2023 Canada, very rarely discussed in the media, politics or officialdom.

I do recognize though that there might be a silent majority of sorts at play, and that discussions in confidence with family and friends around a dinner table may differ.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Again, these are atypical and even controversial views in 2023 Canada, very rarely discussed in the media, politics or officialdom.

I do recognize though that there might be a silent majority of sorts at play, and that discussions in confidence with family and friends around a dinner table may differ.

I'm not sure. CBC has said people debunking claims of mass graves are denialists because nobody was claiming there were mass graves.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-residential-schools-unmarked-graves-denialism-1.6474429

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I am curious how these issues are discussed in Quebec?

Rightly or wrongly, residential schools are seen in Quebec as a tragedy but also as someone else's issue.

Relative to its population, Quebec had few residential schools compared to other parts of Canada, and of those it had they almost all were operated in English under federal authority or oversight of some kind, which further pushes the "Othering" of the issue here.