Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Le Figaro asking the right question today:

Meh, we're not going to spend billions of euros in snow-resilient infrastructure in Paris when we hardly get a miserable inch of snow for a couple of days a year.
This is not Canada. Some other regions in the country, especially mountainous ones are more used to snow and better fitted out for it.

Originally Posted by Hecate

And there is no way a pain au chocolat is “healthier” than a bowl of lucky charms. lol and I often consume both for breakfast. And why not… they’re delicious.

Really? Oh man, you must be trying too hard to be inclusive.
How can you mention in a same sentence fresh buttery pains au chocolat and their unfortunate chemical curses that look like ecstasy pills?
Lol, I'm shocked.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Meh, we're not going to spend billions of euros in snow-resilient infrastructure in Paris when we hardly get a miserable inch of snow for a couple of days a year.
This is not Canada. Some other regions in the country, especially mountainous ones are more used to snow and better fitted out for it.

.

I remember watching the film Les Rivières pourpres, which was filmed in in the winter in eastern France, and thinking it looked a lot like home.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I hadn't realized that the weather in France had such an impact on Quebec and Quebecois Identity ...

Maybe it does, though. If the French climate wasn't (generally) much milder than in Quebec, perhaps a lot more people from France would have moved here centuries ago!

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I hadn't realized that the weather in France had such an impact on Quebec and Quebecois Identity ...

"Quelques arpents de neige" est l'une des citations de Voltaire par lesquelles celui-ci exprimait son évaluation dépréciative de la valeur économique du Canada et, par extension, de la Nouvelle-France, en tant que colonie au XVIIIe siècle.

In the 18th century, Voltaire famously dismissed Canada (and New France) as "a few acres of snow", in terms of its economic value as a colony.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Maybe it does, though. If the French climate wasn't (generally) much milder than in Quebec, perhaps a lot more people from France would have moved here centuries ago!

Good point. It's certainly not the most off topic of themes in the thread. Kind of hilarious it's one of the busiest on the whole site with a bunch of Anglos and a very profligate poster from France.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Kind of hilarious it's one of the busiest on the whole site

Not very surprising, as Québec is by far the most interesting part of Canada (perhaps even North America) due to the meeting of two cultures. The rest of North America is basically Anglo-Saxon culture, with just a few immigrant influences here and there that don't fundamentally change the Anglo-Saxon nature of the place, whereas Québec is really another planet. Even those who criticize it grudgingly recognize it's a very interesting place.

For the same reason, I'm also certain if there existed a Francophone state in Australia it would also be the most interesting by far. Some years ago some Australians forumers on SSC actually complained that in Australia it was basically Anglo culture everywhere, which they found quite monotonous, no diversity of cultures and languages like in Europe (I was chuckling thinking how their ancestors certainly did their best to prevent France from establishing any colony in Australia).

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by YowMetal

Kind of hilarious it's one of the busiest on the whole site with a bunch of Anglos and a very profligate poster from France.

See? A little distraction from the usual is good for...

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Not very surprising, as Québec is by far the most interesting part of Canada (perhaps even North America) due to the meeting of two cultures. The rest of North America is basically Anglo-Saxon culture, with just a few immigrant influences here and there that don't fundamentally change the Anglo-Saxon nature of the place, whereas Québec is really another planet. Even those who criticize it grudgingly recognize it's a very interesting place.

...merde!

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

"Quelques arpents de neige" est l'une des citations de Voltaire par lesquelles celui-ci exprimait son évaluation dépréciative de la valeur économique du Canada et, par extension, de la Nouvelle-France, en tant que colonie au XVIIIe siècle.

In the 18th century, Voltaire famously dismissed Canada (and New France) as "a few acres of snow", in terms of its economic value as a colony.

Back in the days of Voltaire, the climate in French Canada was much harsher than today. According to Elisée Reclus, there was a temperature of minus 42 Celsius reported in Montréal in January 1859. The early 18th century was even colder (the so-called "Little Ice age" extended from the mid-17th to the mid-18th century, when France itself had a climate that would be similar to Québec today, with the Seine River entirely frozen in some years, and the North Sea covered with an ice cap as far south as Dunkirk).

The 15th century was even worse than the Little Ice Age (but no Europeans lived in North America then). One clerk at the parliament of Paris (supreme court of justice, not a legislative assembly) wrote a daily diary, and he reported one winter during the Hundred Years' War how the temperature was so low the ink would freeze in his inkpot and he had to warm it in the fireplace to be able to write, and people in the city were cutting wine with axes, because all the wine was entirely frozen in the casks. That winter wolves were even seen roaming the streets of Paris at night.

In spring the "débâcle" (thawing of the ice) in the Seine River often destroyed the wooden bridges of Paris (which were replaced with stone bridges only in the 17th century).

[MolsonExport]

By that token, maybe Anglo Quebec is even more interesting, as it is a minority wrapped within a majority surrounded by a larger majority.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

By that token, maybe Anglo Quebec is even more interesting, as it is a minority wrapped within a majority surrounded by a larger majority.

Indeed it is. Among other things it's the only largish non-expat native anglophone community in the world that has a majority of its members who have learned another language to live in their "home" place.

Even in Miami FL and El Paso most anglos only speak English, and of course they aren't living in a larger entity like Quebec that doesn't use English as its primary language.

Of course, this uniqueness is entirely dependent on both Montreal and Quebec in general remaining primarily francophone, so one must be mindful to not upset the apple cart.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Among other things it's the only largish non-expat native anglophone community in the world that has a majority of its members who have learned another language to live in their "home" place.

I think there's also the Anglophone minority in Cameroon in a similar case. And also the Anglophone Gibraltarians of course, who usually can speak Spanish.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Not very surprising, as Québec is by far the most interesting part of Canada (perhaps even North America) due to the meeting of two cultures. The rest of North America is basically Anglo-Saxon culture, with just a few immigrant influences here and there that don't fundamentally change the Anglo-Saxon nature of the place, whereas Québec is really another planet. Even those who criticize it grudgingly recognize it's a very interesting place.

.

Many people will scoff or recoil at this but it's largely true.

I mean, Quebec isn't a country but it's self-contained, large and distinct enough to provide a semblance of an answer to "what if America had been French?".

The world already has an obvious answer to the equivalent "British?", "Portuguese?" questions and of course a dozen or more answers to the "Spanish?" question.

Admittedly we are not as much of a given as these ones and most people around the world don't give it much thought, but when they are made aware or think of us, the reaction is almost always: "hey that's pretty interesting" or "that's kinda neat".

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Admittedly we are not as much of a given as these ones and most people around the world don't give it much thought, but when they are made aware or think of us, the reaction is almost always: "hey that's pretty interesting" or "that's kinda neat".

Usually the reaction of (mostly European) SSC forumers when I was a member there was: "France was a bad colonizer, look at all their colonies, they are all shit, Mali, Burkina Faso, Haiti, Lebanon, etc". "But what about Québec?" Answer: "Ah, it's not really French. If they are developed it's due to the British."

Uh, ok...

PS: I always had a perverse joy in pointing out Gambia, South Sudan, Zimbabwe, Guyana (pre-recent oil discoveries), Iraq, etc. Usually the conservation stopped there as they didn't know what to answer.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

By that token, maybe Anglo Quebec is even more interesting, as it is a minority wrapped within a majority surrounded by a larger majority.

Ce que l'on appelle communément envahisseurs...

I'm kidding. I'd actually rather regard French expats as invaders to your region to some extent, but hey, you guys don't get the worst of us.
People moving out there would usually be skilled, productive and move over there to find opportunities they don't get in France.
It is some added value to your place and a loss to ours. Some kind of brain drain, I guess.

So, it is disturbing to the French side, but these things may also be taken in a positive way.
Expats mean closer relations to the spot they settled in, which is quite interesting when it comes to Québec.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Usually the reaction of (mostly European) SSC forumers when I was a member there was: "France was a bad colonizer, look a..

That's kind of racist, isn't it?

Are the British colonies (that aren't "human" colonies of the British Isles) really that great? Some are better than France's for sure, but generally it's the human colonies like the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Quebec (in Canada) that fare the best.

Former colonies where the locals who were already there and are still a majority but got a language, culture and "system" imposed on them by the colonizers aren't that great regardless of the colonizer.

Sierra Leone (British) isn't really much better than Haiti (France).

The Dominican Republic (Spain) is better than Jamaica (British).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's kind of racist, isn't it?

Eastern Europeans tend to be quite racist. And SSC has lots of Eastern Europeans. But even some Western Europeans were making these sorts of comments.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Are the British colonies (that aren't "human" colonies of the British Isles) really that great? Some are better than France's for sure, but generally it's the human colonies like the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Quebec (in Canada) that fare the best.

Yeah exactly.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Usually the reaction of (mostly European) SSC forumers when I was a member there was: "France was a bad colonizer, look at all their colonies, they are all shit, Mali, Burkina Faso, Haiti, Lebanon, etc". "But what about Québec?" Answer: "Ah, it's not really French. If they are developed it's due to the British."

Uh, ok...

PS: I always had a perverse joy in pointing out Gambia, South Sudan, Zimbabwe, Guyana (pre-recent oil discoveries), Iraq, etc. Usually the conservation stopped there as they didn't know what to answer.

All of the above through off the English oppressors and lived with the results. Certainly Quebec was mostly managed by Britain. Civil law doesn't change the basic political structure.

Quebec is certainly interesting but if you've been to parts of Alabama or Mississippi that is a lot more outside of the mainstream American experience than Quebec is outside of the Canadian. Two solitudes is mostly linguistic and mass culture is certainly different but it's a pretty easy adaptation moving between Quebec and Ontario for example.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's kind of racist, isn't it?

Are the British colonies (that aren't "human" colonies of the British Isles) really that great? Some are better than France's for sure, but generally it's the human colonies like the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Quebec (in Canada) that fare the best.

Former colonies where the locals who were already there and are still a majority but got a language, culture and "system" imposed on them by the colonizers aren't that great regardless of the colonizer.

Sierra Leone (British) isn't really much better than Haiti (France).

The Dominican Republic (Spain) is better than Jamaica (British).

In general, the settle colonies, no matter who was the colonizer, were better (i.e., "less horrible") than the resource-extraction colonies. An example of the latter is Belgian Congo, where horrific crimes were committed on an absolutely gigantic scale. Haiti was also a resource-extraction colony, as were many British colonies in Africa.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

All of the above through off the English oppressors and lived with the results. Certainly Quebec was mostly managed by Britain. Civil law doesn't change the basic political structure.

Quebec is certainly interesting but if you've been to parts of Alabama or Mississippi that is a lot more outside of the mainstream American experience than Quebec is outside of the Canadian. Two solitudes is mostly linguistic and mass culture is certainly different but it's a pretty easy adaptation moving between Quebec and Ontario for example.

So you can get a bank teller job or a municipal inspector job in Gatineau more easily than someone from Seattle or Boston can get one in Shitty Valley, Alabama?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So you can get a bank teller job or a municipal inspector job in Gatineau more easily than someone from Seattle or Boston can get one in Shitty Valley, Alabama?

Vice versa in fact probably but I am talking about culture in the very broad sense. Seattle kids getting $8 Boba teas, Venmoing each other the cost while in an poly relationship with a non binary third in their thrupple head to work ruling the world as FANG have so little in common with the mega church attending (white or black) Alabama person paying cash for everything and fishing crawfish.

Other than cultural touchstones I have no problem working or socializing with urban Quebecers.