Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

There'd actually be a higher likelihood of France accepting Québec to join the French Republic. The French are a very sentimental, Latin people, and I'm sure they would in their majority agree to it, without even thinking of all the complicated consequences...

You are an emotional bunch, aren't you?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Exactly. I said that a few months ago, but then I was told that supposedly the US would never refuse some enlargement. I have my doubts... Ideology trumps everything these days, and the Republicans wouldn't like to have some woke, godless, super-liberal new states in the US which would alter US presidential elections.

As I said earlier, the U.S. has pretty much never refused expanding its mainland, BUT you are indeed correct that there is usually horse-trading between political parties when admitting new land (see Compromise of 1850 for example) so I fully agree with you that I don't see the GOP accepting the current Canadian provinces as individual States, it would upset the balance of power way too much.

Compromises are easy though: the U.S. could realistically absorb all of Canada-sans-Quebec with new divisions. The three Maritimes provinces as one reliably blue State, while the BC Interior / Peace River region of BC could become a state and Alberta get broken into AB + Athabasca for three new reddish States, just for example. Even if the House tends bluer after absorbing Anglo-Canada, the Senate could likely be just as red as before, depending on how it's done.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Both.

For the Maritimes part... nah. If Quebec were to separate, "Canada" would probably work out some deal for a customs-protected transportation route either through Quebec or the US (probably the US, as it would be a more efficient route)

Actually, the most efficient route would go through both Quebec and the USA, if Maritime<->Ontario traffic is going to have to go through a foreign country anyway (which is THE only good reason to circumvent Maine right now), why not two.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by lio45

As I said earlier, the U.S. has pretty much never refused expanding, BUT you are indeed correct that there is usually horse-trading between political parties when admitting new land (see Compromise of 1850 for example) so I fully agree with you that I don't see the GOP accepting the current Canadian provinces as individual States, it would upset the balance of power way too much.

Compromises are easy though: the U.S. could realistically absorb all of Canada-sans-Quebec with new divisions. The three Maritimes provinces as one reliably blue State, while the BC Interior / Peace River region of BC could become a state and Alberta get broken into AB + Athabasca for three new reddish States, just for example. Even if the House tends bluer after absorbing Anglo-Canada, the Senate could likely be just as red as before, depending on how it's done.

It would be all about whatever electoral college votes are given to the 'new states', and how they are distributed. Whatever party is in power at the time of transition could rig the electoral college votes to attain whatever balance that is preferable to them. for example the GOP could give a whole crapload of EC votes to the prairies and rural Ontario, and split up the rest based upon typical voting expectations from past voting data.

'Canada' would probably still be more left-leaning than the lower 48, though, so perhaps this transition would be more likely to happen with a Democrat trifecta.

[Nashe]

That begs the question... IF the US absorbed the rest of Canada (doubtful as it is), what would that mean for Quebec? It'd go from a big fish in a small pond to... a small fish in a huge pond...

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

As I said earlier, the U.S. has pretty much never refused expanding its mainland, BUT you are indeed correct that there is usually horse-trading between political parties when admitting new land (see Compromise of 1850 for example) so I fully agree with you that I don't see the GOP accepting the current Canadian provinces as individual States, it would upset the balance of power way too much.

Compromises are easy though: the U.S. could realistically absorb all of Canada-sans-Quebec with new divisions. The three Maritimes provinces as one reliably blue State, while the BC Interior / Peace River region of BC could become a state and Alberta get broken into AB + Athabasca for three new reddish States, just for example. Even if the House tends bluer after absorbing Anglo-Canada, the Senate could likely be just as red as before, depending on how it's done.

That process was complete before the U.S. Civil War, so I don't think one can take away any contemporary conclusions from it.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

People will respond emotionally in the polls all day long, because there are no consequences to saying that you want sovereignty!! Vive Quebec!!! and all that.

Historically it's been the opposite actually. Polls showed rather low support in favor of independence, and yet the OUI got 49.4% of the votes when the referendum took place.

• Video Link

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually, the most efficient route would go through both Quebec and the USA, if Maritime<->Ontario traffic is going to have to go through a foreign country anyway (which is THE only good reason to circumvent Maine right now), why not two.

It would depend upon how open Quebec would be to working with Canada and the US, and if there would be any complications by involving three parties instead of two.

Depending upon how sweet the deal was for the US, perhaps some infrastructure money could be tossed to Maine and Vermont to link a new Interstate from the I-95 to the 401 around Cornwall. Then Quebec needn't worry about the unwashed Anglais passing through their hallowed grounds... (just kidding on the last part... I can't help myself! ).

Or maybe a dedicated rail service would be enough.

[New Brisavoine]

By the way, anyone knows why these two areas voted against independence last time in 1995?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Historically it's been the opposite actually. Polls showed rather low support in favor of independence, and yet the OUI got 49.4% of the votes when the referendum took place.

Maybe I'm wrong and the people will be willing to risk it all on the next go-around. There will be a new group of people voting than last time, people who were either kids or weren't born yet in 1995 would be voting for the next separation. Plus there will probably be less 'native' anglos and more imported francophones... Maybe they will toss caution to the wind and go for it. Or maybe not. That is the question.

Regarding the more recent immigrants, I'm wondering if they would feel shortchanged, thinking that they were making a new home in Canada, just to find that they are suddenly in the middle of more political strife and will no longer live in Canada if they vote "oui"...??

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Vive Quebec!!! and all that.

French grammar's point:

"Vive Québec" means "Long live Québec City".
"Vive le Québec" means "Long live Québec (the province)".



Ditto: Vive le Canada, Vive les Etats-Unis, Vive le Mexique, Vive la France, Vive l'UE, etc. But Vive Montréal, Vive Toronto, Vive New York, Vive Paris, etc. Exception in the exception: Vive La Nouvelle-Orléans.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

French grammar's point:

"Vive Québec" means "Long live Québec City".
"Vive le Québec" means "Long live Québec (the province)".



Ditto: Vive le Canada, Vive les Etats-Unis, Vive le Mexique, Vive la France, Vive l'UE, etc. But Vive Montréal, Vive Toronto, Vive New York, Vive Paris, etc. Exception in the exception: Vive La Nouvelle-Orléans.

And Vive Le Cap.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

You are an emotional bunch, aren't you?

Obviously, otherwise you guys would be speaking French now, from coast to coast and from the Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That process was complete before the U.S. Civil War, so I don't think one can take away any contemporary conclusions from it.

Yeah, it's been too long since the US last expanded. American people are just too used to the shape of their country now. I cannot imagine a change to it. People tend to be conservative, and Americans are extremely conservative (think US dollar bill format, constitution unchanged since the 1780s for the most part even if most of it makes no sense anymore, etc).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

French grammar's point:

"Vive Québec" means "Long live Québec City".
"Vive le Québec" means "Long live Québec (the province)".



Ditto: Vive le Canada, Vive les Etats-Unis, Vive le Mexique, Vive la France, Vive l'UE, etc. But Vive Montréal, Vive Toronto, Vive New York, Vive Paris, etc. Exception in the exception: Vive La Nouvelle-Orléans.

Yeah, thanks. I wasn't being very careful when I posted that. You'll also notice that I didn't include any accent aigu in Québec either. You know what I meant.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Obviously, otherwise you guys would be speaking French now, from coast to coast and from the Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico.

Good one!

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

And Vive Le Cap.

Vive Israël though. That's another exception in the exception.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yeah, thanks. I wasn't being very careful when I posted that. You'll also notice that I didn't include any accent aigu in Québec either. You know what I meant.

Do you guys still say "Kwuhbeck"?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yeah, it's been too long since the US last expanded. American people are just too used to the shape of their country now. I cannot imagine a change to it. People tend to be conservative, and Americans are extremely conservative (think US dollar bill format, constitution unchanged since the 1780s for the most part even if most of it makes no sense anymore, etc).

I think the best case scenario, from the US viewpoint, is for Canada to remain sovereign from coast to coast, and then America has no responsibility for Canada's existence, but we are available to take advantage of for our natural resources, and we are a soft touch because we know that there are too many consequences to not going along with them. Just threaten us with some tariffs or other good ol' American protectionism, and we will fold like a card table with a faulty latch.

I suspect that at some point, as climate change and population expansion creates more issues for the continental US, there will be some expecation for us to share our natural resources with them, like that magical water pipe with the huge faucet in LA that exists somewhere in Trump's imagination. That will probably be a real thing at some point in time.

I wonder if they might try to exert some influence over Québec sovereignty efforts in the future, as they might perceive it being easier to take advantage of Canada, than those ornery, prickly Québecois...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Do you guys still say "Kwuhbeck"?

I say "Kay-beck", but I have heard others say "Kwee-beck". Your version is not uncommon, though. I think the most common I hear is a quick, abbreviated "Kuh-beck", where you just hear the "K" (Qu) consonant pronunciation followed quickly by "beck". Kbec, basically.

Edit: I might add that I'm only talking about my east coast brethren. There is probably somewhat of a variation as you cross our vast country, given that there are many other local pronunciations (dialects, really) for Anglos across Canada. I've never really paid attention to how they pronounce Québec, though.