Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think that a more telling sign is that even the countries that historically were really good at integration and even assimilation of newcomers (like France and Britain) are now struggling rather badly and unable to keep up the pace.

Raise your hand if you didn't until fairly late in your life that Freddie Mercury was of Persian and Indian origin, and not some random English guy. My hand is raised.

Your example tells me you want assimilation. Not integration.

Do you want people who understand the language and culture and can function in it? Or is the goal to have people who completely rid themselves of any trace of their heritage?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

For how long will we abide by this? Sweden, for instance, has a fertility rate of 1.67. It also has 10.5 million people, which is more than it has ever had before.

Could these things be related? Or is it axiomatic that where it once had 8 million, it must later have 10? And if it now has 10, it must soon have 12. Up to 50. Up to 100. A Sweden the size of Congo at some point.

The levels of immigration needed to mimic fertility in our dry-wombed democracies are becoming politically untenable. But the tax schemes of the Orbans and the Putins do not move the needle.

It is starting to look like it will be difficult to achieve a Sweden of even 15 million, never mind the 100-million-person MegaSweden required by theory over time.

Something will need to change and the man who can package it neatly for sale is the man of this century.

It's mostly problematic because our entire economic model is based on never-ending growth, as opposed to some form of sustainment.

I guess we'll see if the Japanese are successful at achieving some kind of transition, since they're among those who will be forced into it first.

[Truenorth00]

Japan (and Korea) have cultural issues that make it hard to raise the birth rate. Canada has substantial economic issues that depress TFR. I'd argue the latter is more fixable, even if difficult. But it requires some seriously difficult choices which we've so far avoided making.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Who knows if people arriving in Canada will integrate as seamlessly into Canadian society as those who came before them did.

It's entirely possible but then again there are no guarantees and every era is unique.

Some of today's influencing factors that were not nearly as present in the old days:

- much greater numbers of certain specific ethnocultural groups and therefore critical mass in many more metro areas and regions of the country

- modern communications technology that allows people and their descendants born in Canada to remain closely in touch with relatives and friends as well as culture and news from the old country

- the democratization of air travel allowing for frequent family trips (often annual in some cases) back to the old country over the summer holidays

- Canada's extremely soft approach to integration and more generally its strong borderline dogmatic messaging on multiculturalism

True enough that communication barriers between those living in their adopted country and that of their ancestors have largely disappeared. Those barriers also once kept out much of the outside world, and even in hermit kingdoms like North Korea, they cannot keep knowledge and content from the outside word from finding a voracious appetite within their increasingly permeable borders.

I would submit that the changes happening in some of these far-flung places are of a magnitude greater than what is happening here in Canada. Huge swathes of their populations are being pulled out of economic precariousness and knowledge backwardness.

Again, those coming here are largely uninterested in creating "Mini Irans". That does not mean that they are renouncing their cultural traits and ties, anymore than their Irish, Jewish, Italian, Ukrainian, etc. counterparts did a century or so ago.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Your example tells me you want assimilation. Not integration.

Do you want people who understand the language and culture and can function in it? Or is the goal to have people who completely rid themselves of any trace of their heritage?

What I want (regardless of what it is) is largely irrelevant to this discussion though.

What is relevant to the future of increasingly diverse societies is them perhaps not producing seamless Freddie Mercury types out of the descendants of immigrants anymore.

[MolsonExport]

A lot of people at the time certainly did not think of Freddie Mercury as a "Seamless" descendent of immigrants. For one due to his looks (he was subjected to a lot of racist shit, especially in the band's early days). For another, due to his sexual orientation (which to be fair, also contributed to his estrangement from some in his ethnic community, as well as from the mainstream...thus marginalized in some respects).

The point stands: some people in this thread clearly want assimilation, not integration.

"Nous", not "vous"

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

A lot of people at the time certainly did not think of Freddie Mercury as a "Seamless" descendent of immigrants. For one due to his looks (he was subjected to a lot of racist shit, especially in the band's early days). For another, due to his sexual orientation (which to be fair, also contributed to his estrangement from some in his ethnic community, as well as from the mainstream...thus marginalized in some respects).

The point stands: some people in this thread clearly want assimilation, not integration.

"Nous", not "vous"

C'est un modèle parmi d'autres.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

True enough that communication barriers between those living in their adopted country and that of their ancestors have largely disappeared. Those barriers also once kept out much of the outside world, and even in hermit kingdoms like North Korea, they cannot keep knowledge and content from the outside word from finding a voracious appetite within their increasingly permeable borders.

I would submit that the changes happening in some of these far-flung places are of a magnitude greater than what is happening here in Canada. Huge swathes of their populations are being pulled out of economic precariousness and knowledge backwardness.

Again, those coming here are largely uninterested in creating "Mini Irans". That does not mean that they are renouncing their cultural traits and ties, anymore than their Irish, Jewish, Italian, Ukrainian, etc. counterparts did a century or so ago.

I don't follow. Is what happened Irish, Jewish, Italian, Ukrainian, etc. immigrants a century ago a good or a bad thing?

Because a lot of today's concerned complainers seem to be saying that how these groups fit into Canada was just fine, and the model they'd like to see applied today.

Their criticism comes from the numerous signs they perceive that the same evolution isn't occurring and might be unlikely to occur.

[harls]

The fact that this 'Québec' thread is in English is just all sorts of irony.

Sorry, continue.

[suburbanite]

I do wonder if high costs of living promote stickier ethnic enclaves as well. There's the absolute scale of modern immigrant hubs in the GTA that definitely has some impact, almost the entirety of Brampton as a South Indian enclave compared to Little Italy or Woodbridge back in the day. However it used to be pretty common to see diffusion out of the traditional enclaves throughout the second generation and beyond. I grew up in Oakville on a street where my waspy family lived next to an Italian one, with a Portuguese family across the street. My friend's Italian mom had 6 brothers and sisters who were born in Italy and moved to Toronto at a young age. She moved to Oakville when they had young kids because that's where it was affordable to get a large enough house and raise a family in the early 90s. Nowadays it's much more common for the next generation of immigrants to be "trapped" where they grew up. Either literally because they can't afford to leave their parents' house, or because proximity to free daycare is almost a necessity for those who do choose to have kids.

I do wonder if things would be different if the newer suburbs and exurbs were relatively affordable. Would somewhere like Georgetown be a mix of second generation South Indian immigrants, 4th generation Canadians, etc. all raising young families in a place that was accessible to them?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by harls

The fact that this 'Québec' thread is in English is just all sorts of irony.

Sorry, continue.

Pas vraiment. It's a thread where mostly anglo ROCer skyscraper and urbanism geeks discuss Quebec, with only a few francophones thrown into the mix for balance.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't follow. Is what happened Irish, Jewish, Italian, Ukrainian, etc. immigrants a century ago a good or a bad thing?

Because a lot of today's concerned complainers seem to be saying that how these groups fit into Canada was just fine, and the model they'd like to see applied today.

Their criticism comes from the numerous signs they perceive that the same evolution isn't occurring and might be unlikely to occur.

You forget that it took the Italians, Jews, Ukrainians, etc took a century to get where they are. And there's plenty of people who still complain about them being too "ethnic". I'm not sure you can expect somebody who landed today to be fully assimilated in their lifetime. Their grandkids will definitely be.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Pas vraiment. It's a thread where mostly anglo ROCer skyscraper and urbanism geeks discuss Quebec, with only a few francophones thrown into the mix for balance.

Fair enough.

[kool maudit]

Forgetting for a second the ins and outs of our cultural narratives on immigration... where's the number?

If a country is trying to mimic the circumstances of a 2.3 TFR, 2.2 + x immigrants = 2.3 would likely be easy.

0.5 + x immigrants = 2.3 would be untenable because the natives would become restless.

So where is the line? 1.8? 1.1? It would take longer for Canada to become restive than Croatia, obviously. But I think there's a line and it can be quantified.

I think this period of history becomes more legible when considered along these lines.

[MolsonExport]

Ask the First Nations' people.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Ask the First Nations' people.

But what could they tell me? The First Nations in what is now Canada were not a confederation that politically decided to allow immigration from European countries to fix issues in their economies. They were a collection of peoples whose nations were more or less conquered by force by Europeans. The English and French didn't apply for student visas from the Haudenosaunee Federation and then bring their moms or whatever.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

A lot of people at the time certainly did not think of Freddie Mercury as a "Seamless" descendent of immigrants. For one due to his looks (he was subjected to a lot of racist shit, especially in the band's early days). For another, due to his sexual orientation (which to be fair, also contributed to his estrangement from some in his ethnic community, as well as from the mainstream...thus marginalized in some respects).

The point stands: some people in this thread clearly want assimilation, not integration.

"Nous", not "vous"

Definitely the feeling I get in these discussions. I don't feel at all this is about "integration". This is definitely about:

1a) Discomfort with the amount of immigrants
1b) Discomfort at the predominant mix of immigrants.

2) Dissatisfaction that these immigrants aren't immediately dropping all their heritage.

Basically too many brown faces and too many accents.

Makes me wonder how some of you here would see me or my daughter if we passed on the street. To me integration is a rather simple definition. Learn the language, learn the culture, fit in. What they do in private life with culture or religion should largely be irrelevant unless it contravenes law or gross cultural norms (like say treatment of women).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Definitely the feeling I get in these discussions. I don't feel at all this is about "integration". This is definitely about:

1a) Discomfort with the amount of immigrants
1b) Discomfort at the predominant mix of immigrants.

2) Dissatisfaction that these immigrants aren't immediately dropping all their heritage.

Basically too many brown faces and too many accents.

Makes me wonder how some of you here would see me or my daughter if we passed on the street. To me integration is a rather simple definition. Learn the language, learn the culture, fit in. What they do in private life with culture or religion should largely be irrelevant unless it contravenes law or gross cultural norms (like say treatment of women).

Well, I'd argue that the fact that these types of "suspicions" always come up on here in what is a rather intelligent, respectful discussion maybe goes a long way in explaining why nativist rhetoric has suddenly popped up in Dudley Do-Right Canada, of all places.

I mean, when it's considered crypto-racist to even suggest that a host country might be legitimate in having expectations and demands vis-à-vis newcomers... what can I say?

[kool maudit]

This is all probably true, but where populations fall on these narratives is changeable (and it doesn't really matter what we think as individuals, or whether we can detect ill will amongst each other. The movements we are discussing will hold true whether we are personally Matt Yglesias-style "one hundred million Canadians" types or surly, "country's full"-style nativists).

It's true that "integration" is somewhere between "multiculturalism built our country" and "too many foreigners around here" as a social narrative. Sweden went from the former to "integration" over the last five or six years. France seems to be moving from "integration" to the latter.

There is an obvious decreasing charitability to these sentiments. But the movements are not mysterious. If Sweden raised immigration to Canada levels 2024-26 with present GDP growth trends*, this society would start to slip below the level of "integration" talk.

(*I also suspect that each percentage point of GDP growth, or ideally GDP per capita, represents x new arrivals that can come in without affecting the charitability index)

[kool maudit]

In any case, we simply cannot talk about any government policy without a conception of its countervailing forces. We could in theory tax people at 75% and go to school until we are 50. We could commit 10% of our budget to Nato.