Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know but I can assure you the acculturation is nowhere on the level of you would see in Canada.

This fall there was a provincial election in British Columbia a week before the US election. A fellow from Vancouver I exchange with on Twitter was a candidate and when doing his porte-à-porte on a couple of occasions people were confused about which election they were voting in, and thought they'd be voting on Nov. 5 and choosing between Trump and Harris. This is not the first time I've heard of stuff like this. It's actually not that uncommon for some Canadians to think they are voting for the "President" of Canada in Canadian elections.

Stupid people dominate in anecdotal stories.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Stupid people dominate in anecdotal stories.

A French journalist twitted this today:

« Le meilleur argument contre la démocratie est une conversation de cinq minutes avec un électeur lambda »
Winston Churchill

I don't know exactly how Churchill worded it in English, but you get the point.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I'm not sure this is what it is. Your first explanation was probably more to the point. Québec looks towards France because it's the largest Francophone country (in the developed world), and small as they are in North America they need the support of the largest Francophone country (which also happens to be the former motherland, but that's beside the point). That's also why they have painstakingly stuck to names coined in France since the 19th century (think "autoroutes" for example, instead of creating their own word... ROC hasn't stuck to "motorways" used in Britain, and that's just one example among hundreds).

If the US was a Francophone country, I'm sure Québec would seldom talk about French politics, or be interested in what's going on in France, at least not more than ROC is interested in what's going on in Britain.

It's also true that in Quebec, it's extremely clear what the mother country is. It doesn't matter that we're closer to the US, not only geographically, but in some other ways as well.

It's still France. Unquestionably.

In Anglo-Canada there is a popular denial about the British roots of the country, and of course some denial of the extremely close cultural proximity of the US. Basically a denial of the "anglosphere" thing. Because it runs against the multicultural image that Canada likes to have.

So according to this, Canada isn't any more anglosphere (British-America) than it is... Philippino or Ukrainian. It's just a mix of all these things. It doesn't matter that ROCers speak English: that's just a code to communicate. The fundamental culture is a rich mix of the culture from everywhere in the world. Not anymore anglo than anything else. But still... all in English of course.

[Acajack]

I was on another forum recently and someone (apparently a serious person) was saying that Canada had more common with a place like Papua New Guinea than the US because the Crown and King Charles was a common value we shared.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Stupid people dominate in anecdotal stories.

Of course but would even a low information person in the UK think they'd be voting for Trump or Harris in the next week?

I don't think anyone even in Quebec would think that.

In this instance it's a sign of acculturation more than stupidity.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not anymore anglo than anything else. But still... all in English of course.

In fact the only reference to "France" or "French" I could find on the main page of the Globe and Mail, was... this!

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Of course but would even a low information person in the UK think they'd be voting for Trump or Harris in the next week?

I don't think anyone even in Quebec would think that.

In that respect, the Québécois are more Canadians than the ROCers.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In fact the only reference to "France" or "French" I could find on the main page of the Globe and Mail, was... this!

They don't get that knowing both of the country's official languages and being able to understand legal documents and pleadings in those languages, IS part of "merit".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In that respect, the Québécois are more Canadians than the ROCers.

Québécois are the original Canadiens (or at least their direct descendants), after all.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I'm not sure this is what it is. Your first explanation was probably more to the point. Québec looks towards France because it's the largest Francophone country (in the developed world), and small as they are in North America they need the support of the largest Francophone country (which also happens to be the former motherland, but that's beside the point). That's also why they have painstakingly stuck to names coined in France since the 19th century (think "autoroutes" for example, instead of creating their own word... ROC hasn't stuck to "motorways" used in Britain, and that's just one example among hundreds).

If the US was a Francophone country, I'm sure Québec would seldom talk about French politics, or be interested in what's going on in France, at least not more than ROC is interested in what's going on in Britain.

Yes the first point is certainly more relevant.

In terms of the comments we deny we are an Anglo country. There may be some of that I think we deny that being an Anglo country has anything to do with Britain. This is in some ways a ridiculous assertion and even Americans should understand the inheritance of common law, individual rights and liberties that are an Anglo heritage though they prefer to call them Judeo Christian values despite them being far from universal in the Christian world and the Judeo addition being a weird late addition. On the other hand current British politics are no longer relevant as they are not the leader of the Anglo world nor even is New York or Washington in the same way Paris is for the French world.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Deux solitudes, suite.

Main page of Le Devoir today:

The fact that you actually read that once in a while (if not daily!), is why (among other reasons) you have your finger on the pulse of Quebec nowadays better than someone like MolsonEx who both lives away and doesn’t consume any of our media.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

A French journalist twitted this today:

I don't know exactly how Churchill worded it in English, but you get the point.

Pretty much a direct translation, except I’d have worded it “… avec l’électeur moyen.”

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

A French journalist twitted this today:

I don't know exactly how Churchill worded it in English, but you get the point.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

They don't get that knowing both of the country's official languages and being able to understand legal documents and pleadings in those languages, IS part of "merit".

Exactly, the same way a fantastic doctor who speaks zero Polish would be somewhat mediocre in terms of overall qualifications to work at a Warsaw hospital — despite having the best possible medical qualifications.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

They don't get that knowing both of the country's official languages and being able to understand legal documents and pleadings in those languages, IS part of "merit".

It's not that they don't "get" it, they reject it.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

It's not that they don't "get" it, they reject it.

Which is a galling indictment of Canada (and great fodder for the PQ).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

It's not that they don't "get" it, they reject it.

They are not the only people with the power to reject things.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Stupid people dominate in anecdotal stories.

Voting should be based on knowledge of the country and it's system. People should have to pass some kind of test before being allowed to vote.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

A French journalist twitted this today:

I don't know exactly how Churchill worded it in English, but you get the point.

Apparently Churchill never said this at all, but it's still a good quote, but applies more today in the US than anywhere else.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Architype

Apparently Churchill never said this at all, but it's still a good quote, but applies more today in the US than anywhere else.

What’s really ironic is, the Americans’ Electoral College as originally designed is THE perfect way to address the problem identified in Churchill’s alleged quote: The People send a bunch of their highest-quality peers to the capital every 4 years and then this subset of the people (the cream of the crop) are the ones who pick the country leader. Indirect democracy!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Architype

Voting should be based on knowledge of the country and it's system. People should have to pass some kind of test before being allowed to vote.



Apparently Churchill never said this at all, but it's still a good quote, but applies more today in the US than anywhere else.

It used to be called secondary school. That apparently no longer works.