Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's more accurate that they don't give a shit.

Anything that sounds like denial on their part is in fact mostly "strategy".

I don't think people are that "evil". I mean, I don't imagine that your average Anglophone Canadian wakes up every morning thinking this is one day closer to extinction of the French language in Canada, hurrah!

The way I see it (and it's the same in the US, think Louisiana), the dominant culture has a hard time realizing the strength of its dominance and the pressure it exerts on dominated cultures. They see French-language signs in the streets, or French songs and dishes in Louisiana, they assume the French language is alive and kicking, bon temps rouler! It's the same for all minorities, I suppose heterosexuals don't really realize the challenges faced by homosexuals, even today, and men don't realize, even today, the challenges really faced by women.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's sometimes mentioned that Ontario's businesses would lose around a quarter of their market if they no longer had access to Quebec. This is based on Quebec's approximate share of the Canadian population, but due to proximity and long-standing linkages it's probably even a bit more than that that is at stake.

When it comes to stuff from the ROC, Quebec isn't supplied from BC and Manitoba. It's supplied from Ontario.

A decent chunk of Canada's economy is regional. So while this means that Quebec for the West might be less important to their economies than population share would indicate, this means that for Ontario it's even more important.

Add to this as you point out that Ontario in Canada-sans-Québec would now be 50% of the country's population, what Ontario wants and needs in terms of a trade relationship with Quebec is what Canada is going to end up getting.

Based on what we've seen in Europe, my assumption would be that if Québec becomes independent, it leads to a less well performing economy short-term, but a more dynamic economy after a few years, and if they play their cards right (think Ireland, or Slovakia in an Eastern European context), they end up after 20 years having a bigger economy than they would have had if they had stayed a province of Canada. The first 3 years may be a bit "sportifs" though.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I don't think people are that "evil". I mean, I don't imagine that your average Anglophone Canadian wakes up every morning thinking this is one day closer to extinction of the French language in Canada, hurrah!

The way I see it (and it's the same in the US, think Louisiana), the dominant culture has a hard time realizing the strength of its dominance and the pressure it exerts on dominated cultures. They see French-language signs in the streets, or French songs and dishes in Louisiana, they assume the French language is alive and kicking, bon temps rouler! It's the same for all minorities, I suppose heterosexuals don't really realize the challenges faced by homosexuals, even today, and men don't realize, even today, the challenges really faced by women.

Oh, I don't think they're cheering for our demise either. That's why I said they don't care. Not caring is not wanting something bad to happen to us. It's being indifferent to what happens either way. The one exception, ironically, being a fringe of the Anglo-Montrealer community that has French in their face every day and wants their "problem" to go away. But when you live in the ROC, French is generally a non-factor and doesn't affect your life at all.

But as I said, when Canadian anglophones do say that they care, it's mostly because they don't want us to pursue independence. This is why we hear surprising stuff like "French will actually be worse off in an independent Quebec because being part of Canada protects you guys".

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Some interesting stats from Encyclopedia Britannica 1911.

The anglophone population of Montreal and suburbs in 1901 was 130,000 people. The population of Toronto and suburbs was 238,000 people. So even in 1901, Toronto was already the undisputed metropolis of the Anglophones in Canada.

At the time, there was only a Canadian metropolis and it was Montreal. Toronto was important and growing, but it's time as #1 came later, despite the larger population.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This discussion got me thinking how Quebec independence would probably lead to a huge economic boom in Ontario in particular.

That is unless Canada-sans-Québec did something stupidly retaliatory that would involve cutting their nose off to spite their face, and that Ontario-based Kellogg's, Magna or TD ended up no longer being able to sell corn flakes, auto parts or banking services in the new République du Québec.

I would have thought modest rather than huge. The list of companies/institutions that would be obliged to decamp is not that big, is it?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't think Montreal was THE magnet for Anglo-Canadians during our history. But I do think it was at one time way more a decent magnet comme les autres than it has been over the past 50 years.

More of an elite magnet, which it still is to some extent (McGill, NFB, NTS, Air Canada HQ, IATA/ICAO offices, etc)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Oh, I don't think they're cheering for our demise either. That's why I said they don't care. Not caring is not wanting something bad to happen to us. It's being indifferent to what happens either way. The one exception, ironically, being a fringe of the Anglo-Montrealer community that has French in their face every day and wants their "problem" to go away. But when you live in the ROC, French is generally a non-factor and doesn't affect your life at all.

But as I said, when Canadian anglophones do say that they care, it's mostly because they don't want us to pursue independence. This is why we hear surprising stuff like "French will actually be worse off in an independent Quebec because being part of Canada protects you guys".

That would be a largely irrelevant fringe nowadays, no?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That would be a largely irrelevant fringe nowadays, no?

I thought so but this persona seems to be coming back in force.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

More of an elite magnet, which it still is to some extent (McGill, NFB, NTS, Air Canada HQ, IATA/ICAO offices, etc)

This is a good description.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

At the time, there was only a Canadian metropolis and it was Montreal. Toronto was important and growing, but it's time as #1 came later, despite the larger population.

I think that's largely a reconstruction ex ante, to speak French. People have a tendency to over-magnify the importance of Montréal in the past to make the takeover by Toronto more dramatic (especially people who wish to accuse the French language policies of the PQ for that takeover), but all the things I'm reading point out rather to a duopole Toronto-Montréal from the 1880s until the 1950s rather than to an over-dominance of Montréal.

It was a bit like Sydney-Melbourne in Australia today. So yes Sydney is technically the largest city, but it's not THE Australian metropolis. Really both Melbourne and Sydney are the two most important cities in Australia. Perhaps in the future if Melbourne passes Sydney and then grows to become twice the size of Sydney people will retrospectively talk about how Sydney used to be THE metropolis of Australia and how dramatic the switch has been, but we who live today know that Sydney is not THE metropolis of Australia, even if technically the largest city, but really one of the two most important economic and population centers of the country. It probably felt the same to the observers in 1900 with respect to Toronto and Montréal in Canada.

For example see what Élisée Reclus, the author of the biggest geographic encyclopedia of the 19th century, the Géographie universelle, wrote in Volume 15 of his massive oeuvre, dedicated to America Borealis (Canada, Newfoundland, Greenland, and Alaska), published in 1890, in the few pages dedicated to Toronto (I'm translating):

The accomplishments of Toronto have been surprisingly rapid, so much so that the young city of Ontario, not even 100 years old, hopes to equal or even surpass Montréal before the end of the century.

The 19th century that is!

Or what the Encyclopedia Britannica wrote in 1911:

Toronto is one of the chief manufacturing centres of the dominion; agricultural machinery, automobiles, bicycles, cotton goods, engines, furniture, foundry products, flour, smoked meats, tobacco, jewelry, &c., are flourishing industries, and the list is constantly extending. [...] As a financial centre Toronto has made remarkable advance. The transactions on the stock exchange rival those of Montreal. The Bank of Commerce has its headquarters here, as have also the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Toronto, the Standard Traders, Imperial, Sovereign, Dominion, Crown, United Empire, Sterling and other banks.

In terms of population, both urban areas were quite close since the end of the 19th century, and as I've shown, Toronto was largely ahead of Montréal for the Anglophone population. Simply no match there.

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

More of an elite magnet, which it still is to some extent (McGill, NFB, NTS, Air Canada HQ, IATA/ICAO offices, etc)

Montréal more of an elite magnet for the Anglophones than Toronto in 1900? Here again, read what Élisée Reclus wrote in 1890 in the pages dedicated to Toronto:

If Toronto is still inferior to Montréal for its commerce, it beats Montréal in the literary and scientific fields: its newspapers, better written, have more readership than those of Montréal. In Toronto are published much more books, and people work more in its higher education schools than is the case in Montréal. The university [of Toronto], founded in 1827, is the principal higher education institution which Canada possesses. Several libraries are open to the public, and schools are among the most beautiful monuments in the city.

[New Brisavoine]

And this is what Élisée Reclus wrote about Ottawa, which Acajack will particularly like.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

It is not 100% certain that an independent Québec can reverse the trend, but it's 100% certain that a non-independent Québec cannot. It all goes back to the point often made: the French language probably cannot survive long-term in Québec if they don't become an independent country at some point. Some are in denial about it (especially the Anglophones, which is natural since dominant groups usually tend to dismiss or overlook the challenges faced by dominated groups), but if you look at it from far-away it's quite obvious.

I think for most Canadian Anglophones, if they had a choice between their country surviving and Quebec maintaining a French-only culture, they would choose their country surviving intact. I agree that there is some denial in place, as I'm sure most of us feel that the French-language-first people would always maintain the language and culture on their own, whether that be true or not.

I would also say that many Anglophone Canadians of European culture don't think so much about the origins of their family, or if they do they try to maintain that in parallel with their 'anglo culture' (i.e. Canadian). I worked with a guy who honoured his Scottish heritage by learning the Gaelic language and traditions, etc., but if you were to meet him on the street, he'd seem like 'just another anglo' to you, for example.

Of course it's different for a culture that was once in control of Canada, and for whom many have family ties in Canada that go back 300+ years. However, that's how/why there are laws in place to 'safeguard' the French language, though we all know that responsibility is up to the families to pass the culture and pride of culture down to their own kids.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Of course it's not something that will happen overnight, so most people won't even realize it's happening, because these are slow processes. But if we had a time machine and could come back to the still Canadian province of Québec 150 years in the future... well, I wouldn't bet I could still use my French with the people living then and there.

It's interesting that you say that. Looking back into the history of Canada, it's always been in a state of flux. Prior to the 1600s, it was all indigenous, then came France to 'claim' its new territory, who then fought with England for control of 'their' territory. Battles with Americans who had defeated England in their own land (and Mexico in the southwest), the formation of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, to later become the province of Canada, finally becoming Canada through Confederation in 1867 (and the birth of "Quebec"), which was as you mentioned, just a little over 150 years (or less than two modern 'average lifetimes' of a human).

Quebec has changed a lot over those past 157ish years, so why would we not expect it to continue to change. Of course everybody has an opinion about it, and 'we' will always choose the opinion that fits our own personal needs the best, hence this Quebec-centred discussion. There should also be an expectation that Anglos (we are not a monolith) will also be looking out for their best interests, as will people whose place of origin was not, perhaps, Canada. Then it just comes down to a majority/minority situation, where the minority is fighting for an outcome that defies the natural, organic outcome that happens when a majority dominates a minority (heh... if we weren't talking about the francais, some of us here might be referring to this as "woke"...).

IMHO, Quebecois should be doing everything they can to preserve their language and culture, but if it's truly only possible by separating from Canada, they should also expect it to not be easy for them.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's sometimes mentioned that Ontario's businesses would lose around a quarter of their market if they no longer had access to Quebec. This is based on Quebec's approximate share of the Canadian population, but due to proximity and long-standing linkages it's probably even a bit more than that that is at stake.

When it comes to stuff from the ROC, Quebec isn't supplied from BC and Manitoba. It's supplied from Ontario.

A decent chunk of Canada's economy is regional. So while this means that Quebec for the West might be less important to their economies than population share would indicate, this means that for Ontario it's even more important.

Add to this as you point out that Ontario in Canada-sans-Québec would now be 50% of the country's population, what Ontario wants and needs in terms of a trade relationship with Quebec is what Canada is going to end up getting.

One thing that might shake things up a little would be how much Quebec could increase their GDP per capita after separation. It typically would be quite a bit below Ontario, and one might expect that this would affect trade balances between the two entities (if you were to average a 'new Canada' from Ontario to BC it would be even more of a difference - the Maritimes would either cease to exist as an entity or become a new Puerto Rico to the US, NL would probably just continue on as is... they are the most resilient of all Canadians). I'm not sure how that would affect new currency valuations, but there would be no more transfer payments from Ottawa, so that might change the game a little (though I'm sure France would probably be there to make a deal with them).

I find it a little offputting that you would not even figure the Atlantic Provinces into any of the situation, but that's probably more realistic than anything, as we basically do not exist in the minds of Ontario and Quebec. Even you, as a former Maritimer...

[New Brisavoine]

And this is what Élisée Reclus wrote about the relationship between the Acadians and the Québécois back in 1890. Note that he refers to the Québécois as "Canadiens". He uses the term "Canadiens" to refer solely to the French Canadians of Québec. The Anglophone Canadians he called "Anglais" and "Américains". If he uses these terms that's because local people used them. Élisée Reclus was usually very well informed, and very faithful in his descriptions of countries.



And Moncton, since we have several Moncton residents here.

[Acajack]

For some reason I cannot see the Reclus quotes.

[New Brisavoine]

Still not visible today?

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I find it a little offputting that you would not even figure the Atlantic Provinces into any of the situation, but that's probably more realistic than anything, as we basically do not exist in the minds of Ontario and Quebec. Even you, as a former Maritimer...

The best guess is that Canada and Québec would negotiate a right-of-way corridor to link Ontario to the Maritimes, but this would be far from ideal for the Atlantic Provinces.

We know that in 1995, Nova Scotia (and Saskatchewan) quietly explored joining the United States in the event of a YES victory.

My best guess is that NS, NB, and PEI join the United States shortly after Québec secedes.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Zeej

The best guess is that Canada and Québec would negotiate a right-of-way corridor to link Ontario to the Maritimes, but this would be far from ideal for the Atlantic Provinces.

We know that in 1995, Nova Scotia (and Saskatchewan) quietly explored joining the United States in the event of a YES victory.

My best guess is that NS, NB, and PEI join the United States shortly after Québec secedes.

People seem to get hung up on it, but I don't think the physical separation would make much practical difference, at least in the short to mid-term. The rail, road, air and electronic links would all still be in place. Alaska and Hawaii, are not less American for being physically remote from the lower 48. France insists that it's overseas territory are part of France.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

People seem to get hung up on it, but I don't think the physical separation would make much practical difference, at least in the short to mid-term. The rail, road, air and electronic links would all still be in place. Alaska and Hawaii, are not less American for being physically remote from the lower 48. France insists that it's overseas territory are part of France.

Yeah, exactly. After Québec's secession, rump Canada would be dead set on stability. Québec leaving would be traumatic enough, so no other territorial reorganization would be tolerated. I imagine that the rest of the country would continue to function pretending nothing had happened, and the independent Québec would have no interest in disrupting the free flow between both parts of rump Canada.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yeah, exactly. After Québec's secession, rump Canada would be dead set on stability. Québec leaving would be traumatic enough, so no other territorial reorganization would be tolerated. I imagine that the rest of the country would continue to function pretending nothing had happened, and the independent Québec would have no interest in disrupting the free flow between both parts of rump Canada.

It's fact that at least two other provinces explored their own secession from Canada in the event of a OUI result in 1995, so I doubt very much that the rest of the country would continue on pretending as though nothing had happened. Your assertion is not based in fact. In the lead up to the 1980 referendum, Canada made a decision to allow Quebec to consult its population. I don't see why there would be a double standard towards other provinces, particularly in the event that one manages to secede.

In Saskatchewan's case:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche...separation-roy-romanow-reveals-1.2744298