Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But still, this is not how I would describe the contemporary Canadian soul in a nutshell in an introduction:

"...that I felt on the contrary a strong identity in the Canadian people, visible in numerous signs of a shared belonging, in particular those solemn and moving ceremonies of the oath of citizenship, that the link with the British crown anchored the country in History without threatening its own personality..."

I think that's a typical Frenchman playing the "devil's advocate", or arguing for the sake of arguing. The French love to do that.

I haven't read the rest of the book, so I don't know how he formed his opinion of Canada, but I would say what he said in the extract I translated is not common among French people (I don't think French people even know there's such a thing as the "oath of citizenship", and what he said about the British crown also struck me as a bit odd to say for a Frenchman). He apparently had his ideas about Canada before going there, which few French people have. He settled in Montréal however, not Toronto or Vancouver. I wonder how his experience there changed his opinion over time, or didn't change it.

As for the Montréal lawyer, I thought he was a bit extreme, but I posted it here to show what some Québécois think, including in the upper professional echelons of Montréal, because some Anglophone forumers here apparently think de Gaulle was totally outlandish and provocative with his "Vive le Québec Libre", when he was only saying out loud what many Québécois wanted to hear at the time.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Absolutely. Or, he could just be a pompous ass. Canada has its fair share of those as well… but they don’t/shouldn’t be considered representative of the country as a whole.

As far as being accepting of cultural differences, sure, but one has a right to see things from their own perspective as well (as you are well aware and practice here regularly). That’s what I’m doing these days - appreciating the value of my own culture, while trying to learn from others. That’s where mutual respect comes from, as opposed to whatever New B is trying to accomplish…

It’s all in fun, though. If this stops being fun I can find a better use for my time….

One of the main reasons I "defend" New Brisavoine is because so many Canadians (including many active on this thread) discuss and comment very strongly on US politics almost constantly, basically as if US politics were their own domestic politics. So I don't see why someone from France wouldn't be allowed to comment on Canadian politics and affairs. Regardless of what they say. I mean, it's not as if every Canadian SSPer who comments on the US is a Norman Finkelstein.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One of the main reasons I "defend" New Brisavoine is because so many Canadians (including many active on this thread) discuss and comment very strongly on US politics almost constantly, basically as if US politics were their own domestic politics...

Yes, so very true lol

Anyway no one cares where they're from, it's the quality of their hot takes, and so far they have that familiar city-vs-city vibe, ethno-state edition

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Not even a quarter century before, thousands of Canadian lives were sacrificed to free his country from the Nazis.

No. I stop you there. It's frankly super annoying to always hear people who never served in the army, let alone fought in WW2, say that what their fathers or grandfathers did was done to "liberate France", or to "save France", in order to make the French today feel guilty or be yes-men of the US hegemon and just shut up.

No Sir, neither Canada, nor the US, nor the UK fought the Nazis in WW2 to "liberate" or "save" France. They fought the Nazis to further their national goals, and out of their national interest, not for the sake of France. Their national interest was not to have a hegemonic Germany that would be a threat to the UK/Canada/USA. It just happened that in order to defeat Germany, France would have to be liberated first, as geography commands. But it was never done "for France". In fact, when France most needed it, in June 1940, the US did not lift a finger.

There's nothing wrong with pursuing one's national interest. All countries do it, that's what they are supposed to do, and I don't criticize it. But it is super annoying to hear children and grandchildren of WW2 soldiers displaying the records of their parents or grandparents to ask the French to just shut up and say "thank you" (in eternity?)!

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

On that one at least, history may end up proving the old General right.

First of all, de Gaulle never "stated" that, contrary to what MolsonExport says. Check his official statements and speeches, you will never find such a sentence. That sentence is one he allegedly told in private to some (or just one) of his ministers I believe (probably Peyrefitte, who later wrote a book retelling all the private conversations he had had with de Gaulle).

There are many things that people say in private that would surprise lots of people if they were published (including Roosevelt, Churchill, etc, I'm sure they must, more than once, have said some nasty stuff about some famous Canadians in private...).

As for the Bretons, it's a comparison that is so ridiculous as not even to deserve an answer. Apples and oranges as they say in English.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

First of all, de Gaulle never "stated" that, contrary to what MolsonExport says. Check his official statements and speeches, you will never find such a sentence. That sentence is one he allegedly told in private to some (or just one) of his ministers I believe (probably Peyrefitte, who later wrote a book retelling all the private conversations he had had with de Gaulle).

There are many things that people say in private that would surprise lots of people if they were published (including Roosevelt, Churchill, etc, I'm sure they must, more than once, have said some nasty stuff about some famous Canadians...).

As for the Bretons, it's a comparison that is so ridiculous as not even to deserve an answer. Apples and oranges as they say in English.

You mean like this?

https://frenchnorthamerica.blogspot.com/2012/11/franklin-roosevelts-plan-for-franco.html

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dleung

Yes, so very true lol

Anyway no one cares where they're from, it's the quality of their hot takes, and so far they have that familiar city-vs-city vibe, ethno-state edition

Most Canadians comment on US politics in the SSP Canada section, it's true. It permeates so many of the discussions here that people sometimes have to be reminded that it's the Canadian forum.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

No. I stop you there. It's frankly super annoying to always hear people who never served in the army, let alone fought in WW2, say that what their fathers or grandfathers did was done to "liberate France", or to "save France", in order to make the French today feel guilty or be yes-men of the US hegemon and just shut up.

No Sir, neither Canada, nor the US, nor the UK fought the Nazis in WW2 to "liberate" or "save" France. They fought the Nazis to further their national goals, and out of their national interest, not for the sake of France. Their national interest was not to have a hegemonic Germany that would be a threat to the UK/Canada/USA. It just happened that in order to defeat Germany, France would have to be liberated first, as geography commands. But it was never done "for France". In fact, when France most needed it, in June 1940, the US did not lift a finger.

There's nothing wrong with pursuing one's national interest. All countries do it, that's what they are supposed to do, and I don't criticize it. But it is super annoying to hear children and grandchildren of WW2 soldiers displaying the records of their parents or grandparents to ask the French to just shut up and say "thank you" (in eternity?)!

It's a completely ridiculous notion that if country X "helped" country Y decades ago, regardless of the nature or level of that assistance, that everyone from country Y must agree and support country X and its actions in every respect today.

[MolsonExport]

Your support for NB's subjective, selective utterings is unwavering. You only take umbrage at the posts provided by Canadians who don't support the separatist project.

This thread stopped being informative a long time ago, on account of a single person. I'm out.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Your support for NB's subjective, selective utterings is unwavering. You only take umbrage at the posts provided by Canadians who don't support the separatist project.

This thread stopped being informative a long time ago, on account of a single person. I'm out.

Not really. But you do you, man.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's a completely ridiculous notion that if country X "helped" country Y decades ago, regardless of the nature or level of that assistance, that everyone from country Y must agree and support country X and its actions in every respect today.

When De Gaulle made his comments exhorting the dissolution of the Canadian state, it was a mere 22 years after the end of WW2. It was the height of the Cold War. We were (and still are) allies in NATO. At the time, Canada still had two military bases in Europe aiding in continental defense.

De Gaulle's comments were beyond the pale and completely indefensible, no matter how much you try to downplay them. Pearson was right to chuck him out of the country.

Asshole. (De Gaulle, not you)

This thread has wandered into becoming the "Quebec Separatist Thread." I have no interest in participating. I think I will follow Molson's lead and take a break from this thread for a while.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

De Gaulle = asshole. None of the western allies could stand the prick during WW2.

The US press was extremely supportive of De Gaulle and of the Free French during WW2. They even once criticized the US administration and came in support of De Gaulle against the US administration (on the issue of St Pierre and Miquelon). How often have you seen the US media supporting a foreign leader against the very US administration?

PS: As a result of that very vocal criticism of the US administration on the issue of St Pierre and Miquelon by the US press, the US Secretary of State just dropped the issue and let the Free French occupy the islands that they had just snatched from Vichy's hand.

You might also want to watch the rapturous welcome De Gaulle received in NYC in 1944 (at 3:13 in the video, with a surprise for the Anglophones at the end of the video):

• Video Link

And again in 1960, the people of New York had not forgotten. Not bad for someone whom supposedly "none of the western allies could stand". It seems it is mostly the Anglo-Canadians (of a certain age) who have an Axa to grind here.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Pearson was right to chuck him out of the country.

De Gaulle told Peyrefitte (in private) he had frankly no intention to travel to Ottawa, so he was quite glad that leg of his journey was cancelled (if the Canadian government had been less petulant and more cunning, what would have really annoyed De Gaulle would have been going to Ottawa, and then being lectured in public by the prime minister of Canada about what he had said in Montréal).

In fact the reason De Gaulle traveled to Canada in 1967 was not because of the 100th anniversary of the country, but because of the Montréal Expo, which gave him a diplomatic excuse to visit Montréal, instead of making an official visit to Ottawa, as should normally have been the case in other circumstances. He also exceptionally crossed the ocean on a French Navy ship, and did not fly, because arriving on a ship allowed him to disembark in Québec City, instead of landing in Ottawa.

Last but not least, both the prime minister of Québec and the mayor of Montréal were a bit embarrassed by the tone of De Gaulle's journey through Québec, but at the same time the prime minister of Québec told De Gaulle with regret (and in private) that if only France had sent more settlers to New France, the whole of North America would be speaking French now. I think that's quite typical of the ambivalent nature of many Québécois (at least in that generation), not daring to call into question the status quo, but also regretting that the French did not vanquish the English in North America.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

When De Gaulle made his comments exhorting the dissolution of the Canadian state, it was a mere 22 years after the end of WW2. It was the height of the Cold War. We were (and still are) allies in NATO. At the time, Canada still had two military bases in Europe aiding in continental defense.

De Gaulle's comments were beyond the pale and completely indefensible, no matter how much you try to downplay them. Pearson was right to chuck him out of the country.

Asshole. (De Gaulle, not you)

This thread has wandered into becoming the "Quebec Separatist Thread." I have no interest in participating. I think I will follow Molson's lead and take a break from this thread for a while.

Thanks for not calling me an asshole.

Though I've been thinking that maybe Lio and I should try and recruit a real hardcore, native-born Quebec separatist for SSP Canada.

There hasn't been one in a very long time and yet it would be representative of a pretty decent chunk of the Canadian population.

I mean, Canadians like diversity and think everyone's voice should be heard, eh?

[Dengler Avenue]

Though I've been thinking that maybe Lio and I should try and recruit a real hardcore, native-born Quebec separatist for SSP Canada.

Do we really need someone new? Just go find someone in the Sherbrooke, Saguenay or Rimouski threads.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You mean like this?

https://frenchnorthamerica.blogspot.com/2012/11/franklin-roosevelts-plan-for-franco.html

Roosevelt applied that exact policy in Louisiana. With great success one must say. In the 1930s, Louisianese schools were suddenly forbidden to teach in the French language, and Cajun kids were even punished for speaking French in the school yard. This was a deliberate policy personally supervised by Roosevelt. It's an unpleasant aspect of his personality that is little known. Apparently he didn't like the "French" (Canadians, Louisianese, or the French of France) all that well. He displayed his great dislike of the country during WW2 (see his attitude regarding De Gaulle). In 1944 he even had completely crazy plans to divide France after the war, give the region of Lille to Belgium to enlarge them and make them a stronger country, make Alsace-Lorraine an independent country detached from France, etc. His advisors had to refrain him and explain these plans were out of touch with reality.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Do we really need someone new? Just go find someone in the Sherbrooke, Saguenay or Rimouski threads.

I suppose we could, though if they felt strongly about these issues they'd already have crossed over.

The forum is always open to new members - everyone except Migs is welcome.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Though I've been thinking that maybe Lio and I should try and recruit a real hardcore, native-born Quebec separatist for SSP Canada.

Do it.

And maybe it would stop some troll from dominating an important topic for this nation.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Do we really need someone new? Just go find someone in the Sherbrooke, Saguenay or Rimouski threads.

Not sure Sherbrooke is the place to look! Saguenay fits the bill though!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

Not sure Sherbrooke is the place to look! Saguenay fits the bill though!

Oh I can find some in Gatineau.

You just need to know where to look and who to talk to.