Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

Subset - WASP; subset - The Frozen Chosen.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by AverageMonctonEnjoyr

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 ?

As a native English speaker, I find the term "Anglo-Saxon" to be an anachronism, and speaks more towards racial origins rather than English language or culture. Probably the last prominent English speaking leader who commonly employed the term was Winston Churchill about 75 years ago.

Anglo-Saxon speaks particularly to a couple of Germanic tribes that invaded southeast Britannia after the fall of the Roman Empire. In a broader sense, the "British peoples" include native Brythonic tribes, the Celts, anglo-Roman remnants and subsequent Norman invaders. Anglo-Saxon therefore is not an inclusive term and is racially tainted, not being culturally sensitive to the British peoples as a whole.

Perhaps as a person of at least 80% Scottish origin, I am sensitive to this point. I happily refer to myself as British in origin, but, not Anglo-Saxon. To me, NB constantly referring to all English speakers anywhere in the world as "Anglo-Saxon" is culturally and racially insensitive, but, perhaps this is a nuance lost on people of French origin.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

I think the term "settler" is widely used by native leaders as a reminder to federal and provincial politicians and members of the media of "who was here first", and to instantly put us on the defensive during any conversations or negotiations. They do this at every opportunity. It is a form of psychological intimidation. It is a genius tactic.

The term is also widely used in the leftist mainstream media as a constant apology for past harms, and, by the left wing woke elite in order to show allyship.

Most other people find the term irritating and demeaning. On my wife's side of the family, we can trace our presence in North America back over 400 years ago. Acajack I imagine is the same with his Acadian origins. We are no longer "settlers."

I have no doubt loco is correct, and that his aboriginal friends and neighbours in Timmins do not use the term. There is a disconnect between native leadership and everyday people on the reserve about this,

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

As a native English speaker, I find the term "Anglo-Saxon" to be an anachronism, and speaks more towards racial origins rather than English language or culture. Probably the last prominent English speaking leader who commonly employed the term was Winston Churchill about 75 years ago.

Anglo-Saxon speaks particularly to a couple of Germanic tribes that invaded southeast Britannia after the fall of the Roman Empire. In a broader sense, the "British peoples" include native Brythonic tribes, the Celts, anglo-Roman remnants and subsequent Norman invaders. Anglo-Saxon therefore is not an inclusive term and is racially tainted, not being culturally sensitive to the British peoples as a whole.

Perhaps as a person of at least 80% Scottish origin, I am sensitive to this point. I happily refer to myself as British in origin, but, not Anglo-Saxon. To me, NB constantly referring to all English speakers anywhere in the world as "Anglo-Saxon" is culturally and racially insensitive, but, perhaps this is a nuance lost on people of French origin.

I'm not entirely sure he is just doing it to irritate you guys specifically, as it does seem to be a widely-used term in France for the groups we are talking about.

Anglo-Saxon is rarer in French-speaking Canada, though here use of the equally inaccurate catch-all term "les Anglais" for anyone whose main language is English, even if their name is Tremblay, Antonucci or Bolanis. (And even in some cases, Wang and Patel.) The more enlightened among us prefer "anglophone".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think the term "settler" is widely used by native leaders as a reminder to federal and provincial politicians and members of the media of "who was here first", and to instantly put us on the defensive during any conversations or negotiations. They do this at every opportunity. It is a form of psychological intimidation. It is a genius tactic.

The term is also widely used in the leftist mainstream media as a constant apology for past harms, and, by the left wing woke elite in order to show allyship.

Most other people find the term irritating and demeaning. On my wife's side of the family, we can trace our presence in North America back over 400 years ago. Acajack I imagine is the same with his Acadian origins. We are no longer "settlers."

I have no doubt loco is correct, and that his aboriginal friends and neighbours in Timmins do not use the term. There is a disconnect between native leadership and everyday people on the reserve about this,

It would be more accurate that we are descendants of settlers.

But then again, so are Indigenous people. Only earlier.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

As a native English speaker, I find the term "Anglo-Saxon" to be an anachronism, .

As such, it's probably similar to how many non-francophone Canadians refer to French-speaking Canadians of long establishment like me as "French".

Most people aren't offended by it, but especially in Quebec it just sounds weird as to people here there is a clear distinction between who is "Québécois" and who is "Français" (French). In the same way that your garden variety Mexican named Pedro Sanchez is not "Spanish" or a Brazilian named José da Silva is not "Portuguese".

There is notably more recognition and use of the term "French" for themselves among francophones outside Quebec, I suppose due to them living surrounded by Anglos (or Anglo-Saxons!) who frequently use it.

[kool maudit]

It's just what French people say. You can find it in Le Monde or Le Figaro. It also has funny connotations of commercial-mindedness and such.

Other groups often complain about such things, but I think it's part of the Anglo-Saxon character to just shrug.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It would be more accurate that we are descendants of settlers.

But then again, so are Indigenous people. Only earlier.

Yes but there is some hypocristy in the we have been here 400 years so ahve more claim than second generation Haitians if you are going to dismiss Indigenous claims who have been here 13000 years. (It's also weird the new thread in Indigenous circles is they have been here maybe 100s of thousands of years as if that changes their claim. (and sounds ridiculous that humans got here before North East Asia and Japan.

One good thing Trduea popularized is a Canadian is a Canadian. Aparently that was only meant for naturalized citizens who commit terror offenses.

There are of course legal rights that Indigenous Canadians have but the idea other spaces or conversations should be ceded to them is inherently racisit.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

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

Captain Paranoid strikes again.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Anglo-Saxons are responsible for an outsized percentage of progress over the past 150 years or more.

Also one or two Hiroshimas, plus too many coups to count (United Fruit Company anyone?).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

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.

Oh they did try, trust me...



But God was on our side and Joan of Arc came.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Captain Paranoid strikes again.

You're the one with such a poor attitude towards your English cousins.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Oh they did try, trust me...

But God was on our side and Joan of Arc came.

I think this was more of a case of the Anglo-Norman monarchy and aristocracy trying one last time to retain their continental possessions.

Don't forget, the language of the English court up until the early 15th century was French, not English. I think they were quite sentimental about their continental territories.

I think your average English peasant could care less.........

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by AverageMonctonEnjoyr

The same cannot be said with American english versus British english.

Yeah. The biggest pain in the ass is automobile parts. You have to learn everything again (bonnet vs hood, windscreen vs windshield, etc).

Spanish has a lot of that too (conducir el coche vs manejar el carro, ordenador vs computador, etc.).

French has very little of that, except for a few purist neologisms in Québec like "pourriel".

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by AverageMonctonEnjoyr

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.

Don't Anglophone keyboards in Canada have French accents? The lack of accents on US keyboards was one of the biggest pain in the ass I found. It would cost almost nothing to add them!!

Latin American keyboards are the best, because you can put accents on any vowel, not just é or è. There's a trick to turn a US keyboard into a Spanish Latin American keyboard with accents, but it's tiresome.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by AverageMonctonEnjoyr

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

If Louisiana hadn't done their best to crush the French language there, they could be a major center of French learning in North America with their weather. They've lost a big market.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I thought France had a lot of early modern immigration?

No, extremely little between 900 and 1850. Not very different from the rest of Europe in that respect. What sets France appart is the big waves of immigration in the late 19th century, when most other (in fact all other) European countries were very "inward" and not welcoming anyone (except if you count Irish immigration to Great Britain as "international immigration").

At the 1900 census, Paris was easily the most multiethnic city of Europe (at least in the sense of different citizenships... Vienna was also very multiethnic in 1900, but they were nearly all Austro-Hungarian citizens). Not so at the 1851 census: back then it was 95%+ native citizens, like all other cities in Europe.

PS: I've just checked the 1851 and 1906 census:
Population of France at the 1851 census:
- 98.9% native French people
- 1.1% foreigners and naturalized foreigners (born foreign citizens and naturalized French later)

1906 census:
- 96.7% native French people
- 3.3% foreigners and naturalized foreigners

And this is for Greater Paris:
1851:
- 95.5% native French people
- 4.5% foreigners and naturalized foreigners

1906:
- 93.0% native French people
- 7.0% foreigners and naturalized foreigners

The largest populations of foreigners in Greater Paris (1,422,065 inh.) in 1851 were:
- Germans: 13,584
- Belgians: 12,156
- Italians: 9,562
- Swiss: 6,030
- Englishmen: 5,781

And in 1906, when Greater Paris reached 3,788,566 inh.:
- Belgians: 43,757
- Italians: 35,397
- Germans: 31,301
- Swiss: 23,632
- "Russians" (lots of them in fact Polish Jews): 18,989
- Englishmen: 13,863
- Americans (US): 9,537

And in 1921, when Greater Paris reached 4,325,609 inh.:
- Italians: 52,391
- Belgians: 50,362
- Swiss: 24,413
- Russians (Jews and White Russians*): 20,287
- Spaniards: 16,960
- Britons: 15,720
- Poles (mostly Jews): 14,893
- Romanians: 9,284
- Luxembourgeois: 7,166
- Americans (US): 6,515
- African foreigners: 6,117 (this does not include the thousands of Algerians who already lived in Paris, as they were French subjects and not foreigners)
- Greeks: 5,522
...
...
...
- Germans: 1,834 !! (down from 35,054 at the 1911 census)

* For those who don't know what a White Russian is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_movement

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

As a native English speaker, I find the term "Anglo-Saxon" to be an anachronism, and speaks more towards racial origins rather than English language or culture. Probably the last prominent English speaking leader who commonly employed the term was Winston Churchill about 75 years ago.

This, just in some recent articles in the Financial Times:









That term "Anglo-Saxon", originally coined by the French to refer to the White Anglophone nations, has long ago been adopted in other European languages. The English were for a long time reluctant to use it, and pointed out almost with annoyance to its anachronistic meaning, but in the past 15 years I've noticed the English media are starting to use it increasingly, under Continental European influence. I've also seen it popping up in some US media here and there.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

No, extremely little between 900 and 1850. Not very different from the rest of Europe in that respect. What sets France appart is the big waves of immigration in the late 19th century, when most other (in fact all other) European countries were very "inward" and not welcoming anyone (except if you count Irish immigration to Great Britain as "international immigration").

That must be what I was thinking of - I definitely remember reading about how Paris was very ethnically diverse in the late 19th century. I didn't realize it was just an artifact of that time and not a trend during the whole millennium. Thanks for the info

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think this was more of a case of the Anglo-Norman monarchy and aristocracy trying one last time to retain their continental possessions.

Don't forget, the language of the English court up until the early 15th century was French, not English. I think they were quite sentimental about their continental territories.

I think your average English peasant could care less.........

Definitely. Plus in some alternate history scenario where the Hundred Years War had gone the other way, the unified Anglo-French kingdom would probably be culturally and linguistically French and the end result would have the assimilation of the English into French culture, not the other way around.