Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Quebec's border claim is amusing but could be a thorny item in an independence scenario.

I believe both sides will quietly agree to drop the issue. Québec's map will continue displaying the border as disputed, and Canada's map will continue showing them as per the Privy Council ruling. It's not the first case of a contested border (for example the border between France and Suriname is contested, Suriname claims a part of upper French Guiana, but both countries are not actively pursuing the feud, with France de facto occupying the claimed territory, and Suriname not doing much to recover/conquer it).

By the way, we also have a territorial dispute with Italy. Italy claims half of the Mont Blanc, whereas French maps show the Mont Blanc as being entirely located within French territory. This border dispute was not settled by the 1947 Paris Treaty (when France annexed various Italian territories along the border), probably because the negotiators had forgotten the diverging maps over the Mont Blanc.

So border disputes are quite frequent, even among democracies, but they usually remain low key.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Why would Quebec buy Labrador from Newfoundland when it was already theirs by divine right????

That was probably the thinking of Taschereau and others in Quebec at the time. In the end, it's a moot point. The Labrador border has been legally defined and Labrador ended as part of Canada in the end.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Ironically, Newfoundland did offer to sell Labrador to Canada (Quebec) on numerous occasions before it joined Canada. Every offer was rebuffed. If the Quebec Premier at the time, Taschereau, was not so close minded, Labrador would be part of Quebec today.

Why did he refuse?

Taschereau is the name of a prominent bourgeois family from the Tours area by the way. Various Taschereau in the 18th century were either mayors of Tours or intendants (ancestors of modern prefects) in the royal administration. I wonder whether he was descended from this family. One Taschereau was even lieutenant general of police of Paris (i.e. chief of the Paris police, and also managing several administrations now managed by the mayor), one of the highest positions in monarchical France, in the 1720s.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It existed, but it did so alongside the defeat of France by the British on the Plains of Abraham in 1759 and the defeat of the British by the Continental Army in 1776.

America > Britain > France.

Actually, the French were not really defeated in the Plains of Abraham. I read recently a book about the siege of Québec City which was quite enlightening. Both commanders (British and French) died, both armies suffered as many casualties, and the French had a larger army in the field than the British. What happened is the French inexplicably retreated in good order within the walls of Québec City (which was odd because they hadn't been routed and could have remained outside the city opposing a largely depleted and wounded British corp), and then Montcalm died of his wounds inside the city, and after that the French bickered, with some willing to continue the fight, whereas others wanted to surrender. The bourgeois of Québec City also wanted to surrender in order to save their houses and goods subjected to constant bombardment for weeks.

In the end, the "peace party" won, but those wishing to continue the war were very angry, as another French army coming from Montréal was approaching and could have tipped the balance. In fact it took another year for the Brits to defeat that other army from Montréal (with the arrival of reinforcements in 1760 which tipped the balance decisively in favor of the British), and occupy the entire territory.

So it's a bit more complicated than "victory in the Plains of Abraham", but of course people need simple explanations and brilliant feat, so Britain was quite eager to magnify the battle in the Plains of Abraham, much as they would later magnify Trafalgar or Waterloo, even though Trafalgar was only a side show really, and Napoleon was defeated by the Russians and the Germans in the enormous Battle of Leipzig in 1813, Waterloo being just really a last-ditch, desperate attempt to recover his power.

[1overcosc]

Trafalgar was significant to the British not because it was big defeat for Napoleon but because it marked the beginning of the era of British naval dominance.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Zeej

Woah there - General Montcalm was asleep when the British forces scaled the cliffs to arrive in Quebec City and when notified, refused to believe the British had made a successful landing.

That's not fair.

What were the British doing there in the first place exactly? Where they called by someone? What business did they have invading a peaceful people?

It was just sheer "might makes right", brute force as the sole determinant of rights, just like Hitler or Napoleon. It's shameful, and it has always polluted the political scene in Canada, because there's no escaping the fact that this is a country that was created due to the invasion and subjugation of part of this population. Of course the same is true with the native Indians in the US, or the Aborigenes in Australia, but they don't make up 20% of the population and full majority in one-fifth of the country.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Trafalgar was significant to the British not because it was big defeat for Napoleon but because it marked the beginning of the era of British naval dominance.

British naval dominance started in the 1750s, long before Trafalgar. The Battle of Quiberon Bay in 1759 (which was far, far more important in history than the Plains of Abraham, or even Trafalgar) is the key event which marked the beginning of British domination over the seas. But even this battle, like most events, is more a consequence than a cause. The real cause of British domination over the seas was France not investing enough in its navy after the end of the 1740s, whereas until the 1740s both navies had been roughly on par. And this was itself the consequence of France not having a representative assembly that could levy enormous taxes as the British could do (in monarchical France, only around 10% of the GDP was taxed by the French state, as opposed to 45% today, when the Brits could tax 20% to 30% of their GDP due to the legitimacy of their parliament).

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

What were the British doing there in the first place exactly? Where they called by someone? What business did they have invading a peaceful people?

Enough with the revisionism, sheesh......

The British were there because a war for continental dominance had already been going on for four fucking years! The French had been very successful up to this point harrying English settlements along the frontiers of the 13 colonies. There was great fear amongst the colonists that the French and their aboriginal allies would actually win the war! French forces needed to be defeated. The easiest way to do this was by decapitation - an attack on Quebec City itself.

The Plains of Abraham was an act of self defence, not an unjustified invasion upon "peaceful people."

Give your head a shake man. What do you think happens during war anyway? You do what you need to do to win, and to survive.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The British were there because a war for continental dominance had already been going on for four fucking years!

A war started by the British American colonies for continental dominance over North America. Your logic is rather twisted. You seem to accuse the aggressed of having defended itself against the aggressor.

It's a bit like saying that the Russians were justified in trying to seize Kyiv in 2022 because it was part of a war for dominance over the Donbas that had already been going on for "four fucking years" with the Ukrainians inflicting big casualties on the Russians and even attacking Russian cities with drones (how dare they!). What a twisted logic...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

What were the British doing there in the first place exactly? Where they called by someone? What business did they have invading a peaceful people?

It was just sheer "might makes right", brute force as the sole determinant of rights, just like Hitler or Napoleon. It's shameful, and it has always polluted the political scene in Canada, because there's no escaping the fact that this is a country that was created due to the invasion and subjugation of part of this population. Of course the same is true with the native Indians in the US, or the Aborigenes in Australia, but they don't make up 20% of the population and full majority in one-fifth of the country.

What's interesting when you consider all of this is how modern Canada is branded as a sort of wilful union, similar to Switzerland.

Of course, it's definitely true that Lower Canada (today's Québec) agreed to the terms of 1867 that created today's Canada. Lower Canada while a legacy of British colonialism did have an elected legislature where francophones were quite predominant in numbers. Though this was a different era and francophones at the time were largely subservient to an élite that was in cahoots with anglo interests, and of course anglophones even if a minority were much more powerful politically, economically and demographically in Quebec than they are today. (They were probably 25% of Quebec's population back then and their political influence was far greater than 25%.)

Another thing is the Confederation agreement that Lower Canada signed onto was supposed to be for a far less centralized political space than what Canada has evolved towards over the past 157 years. That is what the francophones from Quebec were expecting out of it.

The Maritime provinces also had concerns about excessive centralization of powers at the time, though these have faded since then, probably due to decades of economic dependence on the federal government. (The Maritimes are today one of the most pro-Canada regions of the country.)

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

A war started by the British American colonies for continental dominance over North America. Your logic is rather twisted. You seem to accuse the aggressed of having defended itself against the aggressor.

The "French and Indian War" in North America was a mere sideshow to the Seven Years War in Europe. , which started as a bit of a tiff between the Austrians and Prussians, but which spread continent wide. The first action between the French and the English was when the French capturing the island of Menorca from the British in June 1756. In other words, you guys started it!!!

In North America, the first action was at Jumonville Glen when George Washington bolloxed an encounter with a small French detachment on the continental frontier in what is now New York state. The French then started ranging the frontier, and the English countered with several actions they mostly lost, except for the Battle of Fort Beausejour (near where I live), which they won.

The Brits were not bloodthirsty aggressors, and the French were every bit as much at fault. There was blame on both sides, but, the French were not simply innocent victims, no matter how much spin you want to put on it.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

A war started by the British American colonies for continental dominance over North America. Your logic is rather twisted. You seem to accuse the aggressed of having defended itself against the aggressor.

It's a bit like saying that the Russians were justified in trying to seize Kyiv in 2022 because it was part of a war for dominance over the Donbas that had already been going on for "four fucking years" with the Ukrainians inflicting big casualties on the Russians and even attacking Russian cities with drones (how dare they!). What a twisted logic...

Comparing 2024 to 1754 seems dubious. Trying to claim there were good and bad guys back then is a bit revisionist.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Comparing 2024 to 1754 seems dubious. Trying to claim there were good and bad guys back then is a bit revisionist.

Though people in 2290 will probably say the same about our era!

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Though people in 2290 will probably say the same about our era!

We don't need more revisionism.

Maybe we should have a discussion about the Norman Conquest. Was that the fault of the Anglo-Saxons???

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

We don't need more revisionism.

Probably not, though it's interesting to consider that historical figures who are today unanimously considered to be "the good guys", and have been since forever, maybe be reclassified as "the bad guys" at some point in the future.

And vice versa.

Hitler as a "good guy"?

Anything is possible.

(I'm not joking.)

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Probably not, though it's interesting to consider that historical figures who are today unanimously considered to be "the good guys", and have been since forever, maybe be reclassified as "the bad guys" at some point in the future.

And vice versa.

Hitler as a "good guy"?

Anything is possible.

(I'm not joking.)

Well, you certainly hear the Mongol invasions being discussed in dispassionate ways these days, even though Gengis Khan was probably responsible for wiping out 25% of the worlds population.

[MolsonExport]

All this talk about Quebec "repatriating" Labrador. Maybe some people (e.g., the Inuit) think that the former district of Ungava should be hived off from Quebec?

At the time of its creation, Ungava covered over one million square kilometres (390,000 sq mi), although just under 15% of its area was also claimed by Newfoundland. However, just three years later with the adoption of the Quebec Boundary Extension Act, 1898, the southernmost portion of the District of Ungava (excluding offshore islands) was transferred by the Parliament of Canada to Quebec. All told, the act transferred approximately 250,000 square kilometres (97,000 sq mi) of Ungava to Quebec, the majority of which now lies in the modern-day Jamésie region of the province.
...

With the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912, all of Ungava's remaining continental land was transferred to Quebec.

This is not revisionist history.

I know, I know, I know: Canada is divisible, but Quebec's borders are inviolable for the rest of time.

And what about Alsace (Elsaß) in France? Although German dialects were spoken in Elsaß for most of its history, the dominant language in Alsace today is French.

[MonctonRad]

There are some very pretty looking German villages in Alsace-Lorraine (Lotharingia). It's a shame that children there are forbidden from receiving their education in their ancestral German tongue.

Whose fault is this cultural extirpation???

Personally, I think France should give Nice back to the Italians.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

All this talk about Quebec "repatriating" Labrador. Maybe some people (e.g., the Inuit) think that the former district of Ungava should be hived off from Quebec?





This is not revisionist history.

I know, I know, I know: Canada is divisible, but Quebec's borders are inviolable for the rest of time.

And what about Alsace (Elsaß) in France? Although German dialects were spoken in Elsaß for most of its history, the dominant language in Alsace today is French.

I think in the current climate it would be very difficult for Quebec to keep the the whole Nord-du-Quebec region. Most importantly the James Bay Power.

It's actually a very dangerous aspect of independance. While in 1994 Canada would have mediated perhaps slightly in favour of Indigenous views and abhored and violence it's pretty clear that provoking a response from Quebec would see Canada siding with the Indigenous and perhaps with force.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The "French and Indian War" in North America was a mere sideshow to the Seven Years War in Europe.

No. It's curious you don't know that history as you live in North America. The French and Indian War started in 1754, two years BEFORE the Seven Years War started, due to attempts by the colonists in Virginia to expand westwards and encroach on French territory west of the Appalachians in the Ohio river valley.

In particular, the young George Washington commanded a column which ambushed a French patrol near today's Pittsburgh in May 1754 despite the fact there existed no state of war between France and England at the time. Washington was accused of having killed the French Canadian military officer who commanded this patrol AFTER his capture, which is a war crime. The French retaliated and captured George Washington in July 1754 at the Battle of Fort Necessity, to the south of today's Pennsylvania. Washington admitted his guilt in the murder of the French Canadian military officer in exchange for his freedom. He later claimed he had signed a paper he didn't understand because he didn't speak French.

After that incident, skirmishes never ceased really. The British colonists were intent on destroying New France, that was quite clear. They saw New France as an impediment to their westward expansion ('divine Providence' and all that nonsense), and the Protestants in Boston also wanted to destroy "French Papism" in Canada.

There is 0 justification for what the British colonists did. But then France put a veil over these events after 1778 when it allied with the Americans to defeat the British in the American Revolutionary War.

Interestingly in 1754 the British government in London was not very keen to embark on a new war against France so soon after the previous one (which had cost the UK an enormous amount of money and whose debt still needed to be repaid), but it is the British colonists in North America who pushed for war, and eventually after 2 years the British government decided to start war over the seas against France. The European theater was a side show for both countries in that war (it mattered only to Prussia and Austria). The real war was for control of overseas colonies: Britain wanted to destroy the French navy and conquer the sugar islands of France in the Caribbean, which were the most productive colonies in the world, whereas the British colonists in North America wanted to destroy New France in order to expand westward and extinguish 'Papism' in North America, and France wanted to preserve its navy (hence the orders to the admirals not to engage in combat with the Royal Navy in the open sea) and its sugar colonies, and was little interested in New France, which it supported only timidly for fear of overspending and needlessly losing ships of the line which were in limited numbers due to lack of investment in the French navy.