Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Iron Maiden singer Bruce Dickinson last week telling a large Montreal crowd they aren't French, that they're Québécois

Why would he say that?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Why would he say that?

No idea. I did some research about him as I assumed he was Scottish. But he's English and doesn't really have any ties to Scottish nationalism.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

Japan attacked the US Pacific Fleet. Had they "just" bombed Honolulu and left the US Navy out of it the response may have been different. Such an attack on a major US military base anywhere would be considered an act of war.

The day after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt referred to it as a "premeditated invasion" in Congress. I doubt the bombing of a US base in, say, South Korea, would be referred to as a "premeditated invasion" (not an invasion of the US anyway).

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I doubt the bombing of a US base in, say, South Korea, would be referred to as a "premeditated invasion" (not an invasion of the US anyway).

OK, maybe "anywhere" was going too far. The current generally accepted narrative is that the "homeland" (I do not like that term) had never been attacked in modern times until 9/11. And still has not been militarily attacked by a foreign nation state. FDR's rhetoric notwithstanding, the attack on Pearl Harbor is not seen (at least today) as being the same as an attack on, say, New York or San Francisco.

Edited to add: "At least today." If my parents were still alive, I'd ask them how they, as children, felt when it happened.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

the "homeland" (I do not like that term) had never been attacked in modern times until 9/11.

It was attacked by the British in 1812-1814. They even burnt the White House (which wasn't yet white... urban legend has it it was painted white to cover the traces of the fire started by the British).

Originally Posted by bilbao58

If my parents were still alive, I'd ask them how they, as children, felt when it happened.

My landlord lived in Los Angeles at the time (he was a teenager). He told me they expected a Japanese landing in California anytime. They had to dim the lights and live in darkness at night. They really believed the Japanese would bomb LA.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

OK, maybe "anywhere" was going too far. The current generally accepted narrative is that the "homeland" (I do not like that term) had never been attacked in modern times until 9/11. And still has not been militarily attacked by a foreign nation state. FDR's rhetoric notwithstanding, the attack on Pearl Harbor is not seen (at least today) as being the same as an attack on, say, New York or San Francisco.

Edited to add: "At least today." If my parents were still alive, I'd ask them how they, as children, felt when it happened.

Also need to take into the account the geopolitical climate at the time with the US easing out of isolationism and the war in Europe in full swing. A war with Japan was considered inevitable well before PH was bombed (War Plan Orange), which became tied to official American involvement in Europe as things progressed. FDR was already providing large amounts of logistical support to the Allies and looking for an official "in". Japan was never really going to invade the mainland US or even Hawaii but was a legitimate threat to American/European interests in the Pacific. In reality a lot of the American "home front" stuff verged on theatre but served well into mobilizing the population.

I can't really think of a comparable situation today.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

It was attacked by the British in 1812. They even burnt the White House (which wasn't yet white... urban legend has it it was painted white to cover the traces of the fire started by the British).

Yes, I know that. I said "modern times." Americans have a short history and shorter memories. We generally don't consider 1812 to be "modern times."

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

My landlord lived in Los Angeles at the time (he was a teenager). He told me they expected a Japanese landing in California anytime. They had to shade the lights and live in darkness at night. They really believed the Japanese would bomb LA.

Yes, I also know that. It didn't happen, though.

I am continually hearing that we Americans have a (maybe unfounded) sense of security because he have no common memory of being attacked.


Edited to add: My mother lived in Everett, Washington. I'd guess they may have had fears similar to those in California.

[bilbao58]

Anyway, enough Pearl Harbor. Back to Québec.

[New Brisavoine]

Pearl Harbor is currently warmer than Québec though. I'd rather be there.

[bilbao58]

I could use some cool weather. I'll take Québec.

[lio45]

Swimming pools per capita
(old screenshots)


Untitled3



Untitled1

[MolsonExport]

where I grew up in the West Island of Montreal, every second house eventually had a pool in the backyard, usually above ground.

Where I live now, there are very few above ground pools, but a fair number of inground pools (I have one of the latter).

[lio45]

https://fordauthority.com/2024/11/ford-pulls-out-of-ecopro-cathode-plant-in-canada/

There's something I found amusing in there. I know Acajack and ToxiK will spot it instantly (among the "regulars" here), curious about the others

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

https://fordauthority.com/2024/11/ford-pulls-out-of-ecopro-cathode-plant-in-canada/

There's something I found amusing in there. I know Acajack and ToxiK will spot it instantly (among the "regulars" here), curious about the others

Two things actually.

Christine Fréchette is a Quebec Minister not a Canadian Minister.

And PSPP gets quoted when he is the leader of the 4th party with only 4 elected members.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Two things actually.

Christine Fréchette is a Quebec Minister not a Canadian Minister.

And PSPP gets quoted when he is the leader of the 4th party with only 4 elected members.

This !

[Loco101]

I'm assuming that Brett Foote who wrote the article is American.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by niwell

Also need to take into the account the geopolitical climate at the time with the US easing out of isolationism and the war in Europe in full swing. A war with Japan was considered inevitable well before PH was bombed (War Plan Orange), which became tied to official American involvement in Europe as things progressed. FDR was already providing large amounts of logistical support to the Allies and looking for an official "in". Japan was never really going to invade the mainland US or even Hawaii but was a legitimate threat to American/European interests in the Pacific. In reality a lot of the American "home front" stuff verged on theatre but served well into mobilizing the population.

I can't really think of a comparable situation today.

It was considered a ‘hail mary’ shot by Japan, hoping to cripple the US fleet which was gathered in one spot (a poor strategic move), to try to get the US defeated and out of the picture quickly. However, even Yamamoto, who had spent some time living in the US previously, had miscalculated their manufacturing capabilities and their ability to mobilize their industries quickly in response, and thus sealed their own fate on that December day in 1941.

Clearly, it was a strategic move against the military, so at that point an attack on a major city wouldn’t have been in the cards.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

Yes, I know that. I said "modern times." Americans have a short history and shorter memories. We generally don't consider 1812 to be "modern times.".

Agreed, but it depends upon the person or group that you’re talking to. Some consider 1755 to be “modern times”, for example, while others would think that it was a long time and many wars ago…

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It was considered a ‘hail mary’ shot by Japan, hoping to cripple the US fleet which was gathered in one spot (a poor strategic move), to try to get the US defeated and out of the picture quickly. However, even Yamamoto, who had spent some time living in the US previously, had miscalculated their manufacturing capabilities and their ability to mobilize their industries quickly in response, and thus sealed their own fate on that December day in 1941.

Actually Yamamoto was opposed to attacking the US, as he knew his navy couldn't match the US navy and its industrial potential. The decision was taken by the hardliners from the land army, the infamous Kwantung Army which ravaged China and had already launched several coups in Japan and killed several prime ministers and ministers. The emperor was for a long time not in favor of attacking the US, but in the weeks before Pearl Harbor he was eventually won over by the hardliners around Tojo.

Their reasoning was: a- we can't go on for much longer with the US oil embargo, we will have to stop all military operations in China by the beginning of 1942 at the latest without oil, b- we need the oil fields from the Dutch East Indies to continue the war, c- if we seize these oil fields, we can continue our war in China, BUT the US will most certainly attack us (false premise I think, since the US were very isolationist at the time, and I'm not sure a Japanese attack on the Dutch East Indies alone, without attacking the Philippines, would have pushed the US into war), so d- since the US are going to attack us anyway, we might as well cripple their navy potential by attacking their major vessels in Pearl Harbor. They knew they couldn't destroy the US navy entirely, and they knew they couldn't match the US over the long term, but they thought (the hardliners around Tojo) they could destroy enough of the US navy to have a free hand in East Asia for at least one or two years, by which time they'd be in a favorable position to impose a general peace in their favor.

Not only I think they were wrong about "the US is going to attack us anyway", but above all they were extremely deluded in thinking that after having attacked the US they could expect to negotiate a peace or some sort of armistice in a position of force. They did not realize the depth of US pride and patriotism.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Agreed, but it depends upon the person or group that you’re talking to. Some consider 1755 to be “modern times”, for example, while others would think that it was a long time and many wars ago…

In history the modern era starts after the Middle Ages. The US have always lived in the modern era.