Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The English are peculiar compared to other European ethnic groups in that while they are a bastardized mix like pretty much every other ethnic group on the planet

The British genetic pool is largely Celtic Brittonic. The Germanic invaders brought their language, but they were few and did not significantly alter the population. Ditto for the Vikings.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

By contrast, countries like France, Spain, Italy, etc. had plenty of continuous immigration over the 2nd millennium. France in particular had a constant flow of immigration from places like Germany, Italy, etc. all through the early modern period.

Actually the French population was largely fixed from the end of the Viking invasions until the middle of the 19th century. It is only after 1850 that immigration started in earnest.

And like in Britain, the genetic pool of most French people is largely Celtic Gallic (although there are of course some regions where later invaders were more numerous and therefore more present in the local population, such as Vikings in coastal Normandy, Franks in French Flanders and Artois, Bretons in Western Brittany, Alamans in Alsace, and of course Romans in Southern France).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The early-20s French (from France) significant other of one of my kids, referred to anyone white and anglophone as "Anglo-Saxons". This included Anglo-Canadians and Americans, and I can only assume the Irish as well.

My guess is that this is more of linguistic and cultural portemanteau term, than something related to specific ethnic origins.

Yeah, but some people (particularly the British of course) like to take offense and start a history lesson whenever the term "Anglo-Saxon" is used, although in the past 15 years or so I've noted more and more acceptance of the term in the Anglophone world, to the point you now see it used even in newspapers like the Financial Times.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by harls

NB uses 'Anglo-Saxon' in the same spirit as someone with my roots would use 'Frog'.

Anglo-Saxon is neither derogatory nor derisive. It's just a neutral name (although one can criticize the Anglo-Saxons of course, and many do).

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Anglo-Saxon is neither derogatory nor derisive. It's just a neutral name (although one can criticize the Anglo-Saxons of course, and many do).

Oh, we all know you use Anglo-Saxon as a pejorative term, and only in a snide and condescending way.

Much like the first nations peoples in Canada love to refer to Canadians of European descent as "settlers." They claim they use the term to mean non-native, but, the manner in which they tend to use the term indicates they are really using it as a euphemism for "squatters." ie - people who were uninvited and unwanted.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Oh, we all know you use Anglo-Saxon as a pejorative term, and only in a snide and condescending way.

Much like the first nations peoples in Canada love to refer to Canadians of European descent as "settlers." They claim they use the term to mean non-native, but, the manner in which they tend to use the term indicates they are really using it as a euphemism for "squatters." ie - people who were uninvited and unwanted.

Both are tinged with a bit of jealousy. Anglo-Saxons are responsible for an outsized percentage of progress over the past 150 years or more.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

France in particular had a constant flow of immigration from places like Germany, Italy, etc. all through the early modern period.

Most "immigration" before the late 1800s was from territorial captures. On my French side of the family, ancestors became French when the borders moved east (Alpes-Maritimes and Lorraine), when before that, they were "Italian" and "Germanic". (In quotation marks, to avoid nitpicking )

Britain, on the other hand, as an island, had static island borders, so it couldn't annex immigrants from somewhat foreign cultures by growing geographically over the centuries.

[AverageMonctonEnjoyr]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The exact same thing could be done with British English vs American English (try "J'ai payé 200 balles pour faire réparer mon pare-brise chez le garagiste."), but of course they haven't created two different "English" languages in their translate app.

In fact British English vs US English would be more required than France's French vs Canadian French, because the latter is only at an informal level (at a formal level it's exactly the same language save a few Québec purisms in terms of neologisms), whereas British English and US English have lots of differences even at a formal, workplace level.

I had never thought of that. When it comes to academics or work, the exact same french will be used in france as in Canada. The same cannot be said with American english versus British english.

[AverageMonctonEnjoyr]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This person is ignorant and doesn't know what they are talking about.

With close to one-third of the population in New Brunswick being francophone, obviously there are going to be French-speaking healthcare professionals, including doctors.

It's just plain dumb logic.

This doesn't mean that everything is perfect and fantastic for francophones in the province, but they have a decent number of people who can treat them in French.

And we have a francophone medical school located right here in Moncton !

[AverageMonctonEnjoyr]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Vitalité name actually has an accent aigu, even if MonctonRad didn't include it.

For his défense he was probably typing on a keyboard that doesn’t have the accents. As a francophone myself I don’t bother with the accents when typing on an english only keyboard.

[AverageMonctonEnjoyr]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The Irish would vehemently disagree.

Couldn’t be more true. Calling an Irishman British is probably the worst insult.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Everybody does. That French usage has largely spread in the Spanish-speaking world ("Anglosajones"), and now even in the Anglophone world.

"Anglo-Saxon" is largely a historical term in English (it's used as a term to describe the English language/people/society prior to 1066) but it's seen as a bit.. "off" to use it to describe modern day English speaking people or (especially) modern day ethnic English. By that mean it has some racist undertones. I know, I know.. us anglos and our political correctness

[AverageMonctonEnjoyr]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Anyway, I've watched a fascinating (or not so fascinating, maybe I was just bored) documentary about Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on French TV tonight, a US documentary (dubbed in French, if you want to know everything). I thought I would tell you because they mentioned Kamala Harris's time in Montréal (it was a documentary showing all their lives from childhood until now), and I thought their presentation of her time in Montréal was quite... particular.

Keep in mind it's a US documentary, not a French one. So first they insisted on how COLD Montréal is, complete with scenes of blizzard and snow falls in Montréal. They wanted to illustrate what an alienating experience it had been for her to be transplanted in Montréal, and how it made her grow. So super COOOOLD. Also, a FOREIGN land, and when they said "foreign land" they showed pictures of... French-language street signs in Montréal. Also, they said it was "moving to an all-White society". I thought that would make you chuckle a bit considering where Canada is at now.

They also said that Kamala Harris went to French-language school in Montréal, but they did not mention that she actually stayed there for barely a few days and immediately switched to an English-language school. So you'd leave the documentary thinking she must speak very good French having been schooled in French...

Overall, the impression was that Montréal looked really cold, snowy, and was kind of dull with all those white people, plus oh-my-God so foreign with all those signs not even in English!!

A punishment worse than hell, being sent to Québec to learn french

[AverageMonctonEnjoyr]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Oh, we all know you use Anglo-Saxon as a pejorative term, and only in a snide and condescending way.

Much like the first nations peoples in Canada love to refer to Canadians of European descent as "settlers." They claim they use the term to mean non-native, but, the manner in which they tend to use the term indicates they are really using it as a euphemism for "squatters." ie - people who were uninvited and unwanted.

Not really, as a francophone myself I use the term Anglo-Saxon to refer inclusively to any native english speaker of European roots ( white Americans, Canadians, Irish, Scottish, British, Australian, Kiwi etc. ). In the end it’s so much simpler to use as a term. Never saw any negative intent behind it. I have mostly French origins but also a decent chunk of British and Scottish, to which I simply refer as anglo-saxon. Maybe it’s incorrrect hey, but what harm does it do ?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The British genetic pool is largely Celtic Brittonic. The Germanic invaders brought their language, but they were few and did not significantly alter the population. Ditto for the Vikings.


Actually the French population was largely fixed from the end of the Viking invasions until the middle of the 19th century. It is only after 1850 that immigration started in earnest.

And like in Britain, the genetic pool of most French people is largely Celtic Gallic (although there are of course some regions where later invaders were more numerous and therefore more present in the local population, such as Vikings in coastal Normandy, Franks in French Flanders and Artois, Bretons in Western Brittany, Alamans in Alsace, and of course Romans in Southern France).

I thought France had a lot of early modern immigration?

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Few and far between.

Sure there weren't huge populations but there definitely were people throughout and many were quite nomadic.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Oh, we all know you use Anglo-Saxon as a pejorative term, and only in a snide and condescending way.

Much like the first nations peoples in Canada love to refer to Canadians of European descent as "settlers." They claim they use the term to mean non-native, but, the manner in which they tend to use the term indicates they are really using it as a euphemism for "squatters." ie - people who were uninvited and unwanted.

Most Indigenous people I know don't love to call others settlers. It's just not something you hear at a personal level. It's something you'll hear from social activists, politicians and maybe from some band chiefs when speaking to the media.

Yes, there are racist Indigenous people out there but of course racism exists everywhere and it's never acceptable. Most Indigenous people in my region are brought up to not get into personal arguments over colonization and settlers because it serves no good purpose because people of other backgrounds were born here many generations later and weren't the ones who chose to move in and colonize. Now if you're talking about defending culture, rights and reconciliation then that is okay but it doesn't mean bashing people based on race. I can't think of a First Nation in my part of the province that doesn't welcome non-members.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't dispute that these outposts in Rupert's Land existed, but does anyone know anyone who is actually descended from the people who lived there for a time?

I mean, people talk about the smallness of the French settlements in St Lawrence Valley but probably 80% of the people I know and frequent these days are descended from them. As are people like Hillary Clinton, Madonna and even Ricky Gervais.

I am directly descended from the Acadian settlements in and around Port Royal and I know tons of people descended from that specific area as well. And this doesn't include tons of people in Louisiana of course including a number of people famous in the US.

On the anglo side I've known in my life quite a few people descended from the United Empire Loyalists and also people descended from various old fishing villages in Newfoundland.

But Rupert's Land? Nope.

I live in what was once part of Rupert's Land. I'm not sure if you're asking about descendants of the original British settlers, other Europeans or Indigenous peoples.

I can definitely say that our large Cree population in Timmins is descended from what was colonized as Rupert's Land. All are from along the James Bay and Hudson Bay coast and a smaller number from along certain waterways. And pretty much all of them have Scottish and/or English ancestry as well due to many mixed marriages over 400 years.

Many people don't know that the first English speaking settlement in Ontario was Moose Factory which still exists today and is on an island in the Moose River just before it drains into James Bay. It is right near the Town of Moosonee on the mainland.

As for people who are descendants of settlers of Rupert's Land and of mainly European background, I would have to do some research. I don't know anybody personally that I can think of but I could ask around.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Oh, we all know you use Anglo-Saxon as a pejorative term, and only in a snide and condescending way.

Much like the first nations peoples in Canada love to refer to Canadians of European descent as "settlers." They claim they use the term to mean non-native, but, the manner in which they tend to use the term indicates they are really using it as a euphemism for "squatters." ie - people who were uninvited and unwanted.

Anglo-Saxon is a totally accurate term to describe millions of people alive today.

It’s also at its base meaning totally neutral.

Settler is not an accurate term to describe someone like you or me today, and of course is not neutral.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I live in what was once part of Rupert's Land. I'm not sure if you're asking about descendants of the original British settlers, other Europeans or Indigenous peoples.

I can definitely say that our large Cree population in Timmins is descended from what was colonized as Rupert's Land. All are from along the James Bay and Hudson Bay coast and a smaller number from along certain waterways. And pretty much all of them have Scottish and/or English ancestry as well due to many mixed marriages over 400 years.

Many people don't know that the first English speaking settlement in Ontario was Moose Factory which still exists today and is on an island in the Moose River just before it drains into James Bay. It is right near the Town of Moosonee on the mainland.

As for people who are descendants of settlers of Rupert's Land and of mainly European background, I would have to do some research. I don't know anybody personally that I can think of but I could ask around.

As I clarified before Indigenous people would have been in the region for thousands of years and didn’t need the British presence for that. Even if some picked up a bit of British DNA in the process.


What I was talking about are primarily British descendants of the Rupert’s Land activity, as they have been equated with the French presence in present day Canada.

I don’t think there is any evidence that they are comparable at all.

Except for Newfoundland, there isn’t anything British in Canada that has a demographic legacy that predates the 1760-1770s so the British Conquest and American Independence period.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Most Indigenous people I know don't love to call others settlers. It's just not something you hear at a personal level. It's something you'll hear from social activists, politicians and maybe from some band chiefs when speaking to the media.

Yes, there are racist Indigenous people out there but of course racism exists everywhere and it's never acceptable. Most Indigenous people in my region are brought up to not get into personal arguments over colonization and settlers because it serves no good purpose because people of other backgrounds were born here many generations later and weren't the ones who chose to move in and colonize. Now if you're talking about defending culture, rights and reconciliation then that is okay but it doesn't mean bashing people based on race. I can't think of a First Nation in my part of the province that doesn't welcome non-members.

I have it on pretty good authority from friends and family that settler is used fairly commonly by Indigenous staff in the federal public service when discussing cultural matters, in reference to non-Indigenous colleagues and Canadians.

You may also have non-Indigenous people refer to themselves as settlers in these contexts, as what I assume to be an effort to appear open minded.