Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes I have. I am actually in it. I have a bit of a "cameo" of sorts.

The doc is going to be on the NFB channel on Pluto TV tonight. I'm not sure of the time, around or after 5 pm

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by elly63

The doc is going to be on the NFB channel on Pluto TV tonight. I'm not sure of the time, around or after 5 pm

A number of people I know have learned surprising things about their fathers or grandfathers as a result of that documentary. (I also did some searching but didn't find anything about anyone in my family.)

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Acajack

A number of people I know have learned surprising things about their fathers or grandfathers as a result of that documentary. (I also did some searching but didn't find anything about anyone in my family.)

I had an uncle who fathered a daughter none of us knew about until he was around 90. It is amazing the secrets people of those days could keep. They were better than the present CIA.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

No argument from me there. I consider Quebec to be the most Canadian province in the country.

As such one could almost view Québécois nationalism or even independence as a last-ditch effort to save Canadianity.

Like, you have to destroy Canada to save it?

You’ll have to give me some time to absorb that one…

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Like, you have to destroy Canada to save it?

You’ll have to give me some time to absorb that one…

Surely it's not that difficult to ascertain.

Canada (the current state) has lost its way and cannot be saved.

Québécois are the descendants of the original Canadiens and Quebec is the original Canada.

So let's preserve what we can of the original Canada, its spirit and culture by creating a new country called Quebec.

This is actually a pretty obvious subtext of the Quebec independence movement, even if it's not often stated in the these terms.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think the "NOT American" thing is probably so ingrained that most people don't notice it anymore.

But even if it isn't, people in the Maritimes do have a very strong Canadian identity. I think most people would agree with that.

In this sense, they see themselves as "NOT American", "NOT Brazilian", "NOT Burmese", "NOT Nepali", etc. I.e. not anything else but Canadian.

So in light of this it would be very odd to see them pursue union with the US and not tough it out for a very long time with what would be left of Canada, even if they were geographically separated from it by a new country called Quebec.

I know the economic reason has been cited but Canadians have for 150 years or more chosen a somewhat lower standard of living over joining or cozying up more to the Americans.

I don't see why that would change all of a sudden if Quebec became independent.

If anything you'd probably see Canadian nationalism get a lot stronger in Canada-sans-Québec.

You are forgetting to take into account my imaginary situation where the new version of Canada sees the ‘real’ eastern provinces as a drain rather than an asset, and said provinces having to tough it out with many corporations pulling out of the area because of increased costs or other difficulties in maintaining a presence here. There would no longer be a CAF presence here, either. On the other hand we would have a monopoly on seafood and offshore oil etc. and could diversify to become a major source of wind generated power.

It’s hard to predict how that would play out, and you’re right in that it would be a tough, unpopular decision, but if it became a choice between utter poverty combined with the inability to fend off threats from abroad (which could happen with an undefended east coast), then a union with the US could be a non-ideal choice between two evils.

Just conversation fodder though… nobody should be taking anything I write here too seriously, nor is it some assertion on which to base a prediction for an unlikely future.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

You are forgetting to take into account my imaginary situation where the new version of Canada sees the ‘real’ eastern provinces as a drain rather than an asset, and said provinces having to tough it out with many corporations pulling out of the area because of increased costs or other difficulties in maintaining a presence here. There would no longer be a CAF presence here, either. On the other hand we would have a monopoly on seafood and offshore oil etc. and could diversify to become a major source of wind generated power.

It’s hard to predict how that would play out, and you’re right in that it would be a tough, unpopular decision, but if it became a choice between utter poverty combined with the inability to fend off threats from abroad (which could happen with an undefended east coast), then a union with the US could be a non-ideal choice between two evils.

Just conversation fodder though… nobody should be taking anything I write here too seriously, nor is it some assertion on which to base a prediction for an unlikely future.

I really doubt that Canada would want to jettison or even deliberately neglect you guys.

Canada west of Edmundston (or the Ottawa River) can sometimes be condescending towards Atlantic Canada but it's overwhelmingly a well-liked and appreciated part of the country. Even in Quebec you're generally the favourites (well, especially NB Acadiens).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Surely it's not that difficult to ascertain.

Canada (the current state) has lost its way and cannot be saved.

Québécois are the descendants of the original Canadiens and Quebec is the original Canada.

So let's preserve what we can of the original Canada, its spirit and culture by creating a new country called Quebec.

This is actually a pretty obvious subtext of the Quebec independence movement, even if it's not often stated in the these terms.

Ummm… not really, unless you are concluding that the French being the first to launch a major occupation makes Quebec the original Canada. But then there is the uncomfortable idea that Quebec as the Quebec we know and love today didn’t exist until Confederation. Before that it was Lower Canada (which meant that there was an Upper Canada roughly encompassing what we now know as Ontario), then the two were combined into the province of Canada until Confederation. Knowing that you know all of this, likely more completely than I do, confuses me as to why you would take up such an argument (don’t worry, I’m confused easily!).

If it comes down to opinion, then for me, one could never consider pre-Confederation Canada to encompass “Canada”, and in fact I will go further to say that Canada wasn’t complete until 1949, so any movement to lessen post-1949 is in a sense destroying Canada. YMMV, and obviously it does.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I really doubt that Canada would want to jettison or even deliberately neglect you guys.

Canada west of Edmundston (or the Ottawa River) can sometimes be condescending towards Atlantic Canada but it's overwhelmingly a well-liked and appreciated part of the country. Even in Quebec you're generally the favourites (well, especially NB Acadiens).

All I’m saying is that being popular doesn’t pay the bills, to state it in an over-simplified manner. However, there is this thing called the Atlantic Ocean that may play in our favour…

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Ummm… not really, unless you are concluding that the French being the first to launch a major occupation makes Quebec the original Canada. But then there is the uncomfortable idea that Quebec as the Quebec we know and love today didn’t exist until Confederation. Before that it was Lower Canada (which meant that there was an Upper Canada roughly encompassing what we now know as Ontario), then the two were combined into the province of Canada until Confederation. Knowing that you know all of this, likely more completely than I do, confuses me as to why you would take up such an argument (don’t worry, I’m confused easily!).

If it comes down to opinion, then for me, one could never consider pre-Confederation Canada to encompass “Canada”, and in fact I will go further to say that Canada wasn’t complete until 1949, so any movement to lessen post-1949 is in a sense destroying Canada. YMMV, and obviously it does.

Actually... yes really.

The St Lawrence Valley was the first place in the history of humanity to be called Canada and the people from France who settled it were the first human grouping in history to be called Canadiens.

The main national symbols like the maple leaf and the beaver originated there as did the national anthem and a whole bunch of other stuff like the game of hockey for example.

Present-day Quebec is the birthplace of Canada as an identifiable place in the world, unquestionably.

I know there is a fairly big malaise and uneasiness with recognizing this historical reality across the country due to the irrrelevance of this in people's lives or a disconnect from it, or even in some cases hostility to French and francophones.

Unlike say the US where everyone even in Hawaii or Alaska or California recognizes the origins of their nation are in the 13 colonies of the east coast, and everyone partakes in traditions like Thanksgiving and others, and doesn't dismiss it with "it has nothing to do with us because we're in the middle of the Pacific Ocean a million miles away and there are no turkeys or autumn leaves here".

[Acajack]

Some people may recall that Stephen Harper when he was Prime Minister would start all of his speeches in French. When asked why, he said that it was because French-speaking Canadians founded Canada, French-speaking Canadians were the first people to call themselves Canadians, and the first group of people who had a vision of a country called Canada in this part of the world were French Canadians.

Canada's original language is French.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Present-day Quebec is the birthplace of Canada as an identifiable place in the world, unquestionably.

Ssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

Ssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

You can't silence me, especially not when I am speaking the truth!

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You can't silence me, especially not when I am speaking the truth!

I really don't see what it's so hard to accept, but it really speaks to a prevailing attitude in Canada as if attributing something to a specific group necessarily removes it from the others.

Canada is the national equivalent of a participation trophy in children's soccer leagues. It really is.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Actually... yes really.

The St Lawrence Valley was the first place in the history of humanity to be called Canada and the people from France who settled it were the first human grouping in history to be called Canadiens.

The main national symbols like the maple leaf and the beaver originated there as did the national anthem and a whole bunch of other stuff like the game of hockey for example.

Present-day Quebec is the birthplace of Canada as an identifiable place in the world, unquestionably.

I know there is a fairly big malaise and uneasiness with recognizing this historical reality across the country due to the irrrelevance of this in people's lives or a disconnect from it, or even in some cases hostility to French and francophones.

Unlike say the US where everyone even in Hawaii or Alaska or California recognizes the origins of their nation are in the 13 colonies of the east coast, and everyone partakes in traditions like Thanksgiving and others, and doesn't dismiss it with "it has nothing to do with us because we're in the middle of the Pacific Ocean a million miles away and there are no turkeys or autumn leaves here".

There are a few stretches there, IMHO, and you could probably start a whole thread on where and when hockey was created, but now we’re coming down to some subjective stuff that doesn’t (and perhaps will never) have an objective conclusion.

For my subjectivity, I’ve stated it clearly that I don’t draw my opinions on things that happened in the 17th and 18th centuries, while two nations were engaged in war about territory that if you want to get virtuous about, didn’t belong to either nation. Again, IMHO, Canada became closer to what we recognize as the Canada of today in 1867, and finally complete (in my subjective opinion) in 1949. There will be some who agree and some who disagree, such is life. For the moment, though, we have reached an impasse, and any further repetition of the same information will not further the conversation.

And yes, of course I would expect you to draw from the time period that favours your argument, much the same as you would expect me to choose the period of history that favours mine (basically from the mid 1800s to the present). So I get where you’re coming from, even if I don’t agree.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Zeej

I really don't see what it's so hard to accept, but it really speaks to a prevailing attitude in Canada as if attributing something to a specific group necessarily removes it from the others.

Canada is the national equivalent of a participation trophy in children's soccer leagues. It really is.

Uh… yeah… okay, if that’s what you want to believe. I’ve stated my opinions, and fully expect disagreement. Have at it.

FWIW, I also don’t see what’s so hard to accept!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You can't silence me, especially not when I am speaking the truth!

Silencing you would be just this side of a tragedy, and that’s completely my opinion.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

There are a few stretches there, IMHO, and you could probably start a whole thread on where and when hockey was created, but now we’re coming down to some subjective stuff that doesn’t (and perhaps will never) have an objective conclusion.

For my subjectivity, I’ve stated it clearly that I don’t draw my opinions on things that happened in the 17th and 18th centuries, while two nations were engaged in war about territory that if you want to get virtuous about, didn’t belong to either nation. Again, IMHO, Canada became closer to what we recognize as the Canada of today in 1867, and finally complete (in my subjective opinion) in 1949. There will be some who agree and some who disagree, such is life. For the moment, though, we have reached an impasse, and any further repetition of the same information will not further the conversation.

And yes, of course I would expect you to draw from the time period that favours your argument, much the same as you would expect me to choose the period of history that favours mine (basically from the mid 1800s to the present). So I get where you’re coming from, even if I don’t agree.

If this country had some other name, and the first people to refer to themselves with a derivative of that name were Ukrainian homesteaders on the Prairies, or if we had the Douglas fir on our flag, or the national anthem was I'se the B'y, I most definitely wouldn't be making any of these points.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The main national symbols like the maple leaf and the beaver originated there as did the national anthem and a whole bunch of other stuff like the game of hockey for example.

Present-day Quebec is the birthplace of Canada as an identifiable place in the world, unquestionably.

I'm not a historian of hockey, but if Wikipedia is to be believed, the first ice hockey game was organized by James Creighton (born in NS) a member of the Victoria Skating Club, featuring athletes from McGill university using sticks manufactured in Nova Scotia. The game borrowed heavily from informal pickup games that Creighton played in his Nova Scotia youth.
Doesn't sound like very de souche origins to me.

If Quebec leaves Canada as a French-speaking nation state of Quebecois, they have about as much claim to inventing hockey as the Russian citizens of Kaliningrad have to claiming Kant.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

If Quebec leaves Canada as a French-speaking nation state of Quebecois, they have about as much claim to inventing hockey as the Russian citizens of Kaliningrad have to claiming Kant.

I don't know about that example. Kaliningrad was the German-speaking Königsberg until 1945, so there are probably even a few people alive today who grew up and went to school there when it was still a German city.

And while I don't know if people there today make any claim to Imanuel Kant, but I do know for example that Prague makes a pretty big claim to Franz Kafka, even though he wrote in German. It's quite common.