Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[harls]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I was joking. Wrong emoji I guess.

EDIT: And you're the one who was implying I was lying with my story about Ste-Catherine. Is subtly calling people lying what passes for "affable", now?

I think you spend way too much time here, mister.

[harls]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

I doubt there's connotation of a slur

Oh, the connotation is there. Trust me.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They need to protect the foreign troll. They get satisfaction out of him pissing everyone else off.

Like anyone New Brisavoine is right on some things, and wrong on others. In many cases what he says is simply his opinion. It's not something that can be fact-checked.

The fact that he gets so excessively nit-picked for using "Anglo-Saxon" dismissively or for simply being a foreigner (whereas no rule exists about needing to be of a certain nationality to comment in any SSP thread) is arguably indicative that a lot of the time people are bereft of counter-arguments to what he is saying, and that gets under their skin a bit.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by harls

I think you spend way too much time here, mister.

I generally hate simple answers like this, but again...

So what?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Canadians don't even think about the Brits that much.

You're not separated from the Brits by just 30 km of water, dear.

Besides, their media have a great hold over French media (which is not something I like, but it is the way it is).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Like anyone New Brisavoine is right on some things, and wrong on others. In many cases what he says is simply his opinion. It's not something that can be fact-checked.

The fact that he gets so excessively nit-picked for using "Anglo-Saxon" dismissively or for simply being a foreigner (whereas no rule exists about needing to be of a certain nationality to comment in any SSP thread) is arguably indicative that a lot of the time people are bereft of counter-arguments to what he is saying, and that gets under their skin a bit.

J'ai l'habitude. So I don't pay much attention to it.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Orange is a French city anyway.

So in this case I call both the Dutch and the Irish Protestants thieves.

Why, because they wanted Home Rule and not Rome Rule?

[harls]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I generally hate simple answers like this, but again...

So what?

Wow, 3 seconds to reply. Work must be hard.

[Curmudgeon]

Does anyone really care what some people call each other?

Anglo-Saxon is absolutely not offensive, except I suppose to the Jutes who get left out.

The United Kingdom is one of the world's most exemplary nations in every respect. The British really could care less about terms the continentals use with their chequered histories. Care to talk about it Germany? France?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Why, because they wanted Home Rule and not Rome Rule?

Rome did not rule Catholic countries. I'm surprised this old cliché is still around in your (Protestant) corner of the Anglo-world. The Catholic countries were always quite independent from the Pope, sometimes going as far as fighting wars against the Pope (and even sacking Rome in the case of the Spaniards).

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Rome did not rule Catholic countries. I'm surprised this old cliché is still around in your (Protestant) corner of the Anglo-world. The Catholic countries were always quite independent from the Pope, sometimes going as far as fighting wars against the Pope (and even sacking Rome in the case of the Spaniards).

The Netherlands fought a very long and bloody war of independence against the Spanish and their inquisition. I was referring to this. The Netherlands is a remarkably successful nation. The Dutch are not thieves and are great friends. I don't think pope is capitalised. Certainly God is.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

The British really could care less about terms the continentals use

Actually the British media increasingly use the term Anglo-Saxon too. It's been noticeable in the past 15 years.

Examples:

The Guardian:

Call off the intergenerational wars

The right peddles intergenerational conflict as a way of diverting attention from the gross inequalities that have plagued Anglo-Saxon countries – and to a lesser extent other advanced economies – over the past 30 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/25/baby-boomers-intergenerational-wars

Telegraph:

Britain abandons all reason by backing Biden’s sordid tax plan

Governments in the US and UK no longer have faith in competitive, free-market global capitalism. How else can we interpret recent policy developments? The pair have concluded that China’s rise necessitates imitation, through rank industrial policy and state-led regeneration. And in the sordid G7 tax agreement, Anglo-Saxon politicians went French: weakening the competitive constraint of national tax sovereignty and casting aside the ideals of pro-growth tax systems for crumbs of additional revenue.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/202...s-reason-backing-bidens-sordid-tax-plan/

Financial Times:

This is a story that should be about the US

It is well known that London and Switzerland, between them, dominate the world of international wealth management, while Hong Kong still acts as the funnel through which business is done with China, not least because it remains a free port jurisdiction discrete from its ultimate beneficial owner, with many of the residual Anglo-Saxon qualities that today’s international businesses still look for.

https://www.ft.com/content/f664dcce-fb57-11e5-8f41-df5bda8beb40

BBC (David Davis was the Brexit secretary in the British government after 2016):

Post-Brexit UK won't be like Mad Max, says David Davis

Mr Davis hit back at the government's critics in his speech, invoking the Mad Max series of action films which portray societal collapse in a lawless future world.

"They fear that Brexit could lead to an Anglo-Saxon race to the bottom," Mr Davis said.

"With Britain plunged into a Mad Max-style world borrowed from dystopian fiction. These fears about a race to the bottom are based on nothing, not our history, not our intentions, not our national interest.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43120277

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

The Netherlands fought a very long and bloody war of independence against the Spanish and their inquisition. I was referring to this.

Half of the Netherlands was Catholic (and not persecuted like in Britain).

Green: Catholic majority
Red: Protestant majority

[Curmudgeon]

^^^

Sure, why not. As long as it is understood that the Scots, Welsh and Irish are not Anglo-Saxons. You might even get some raised eyebrows in the North of England.

If someone said to me "you &^@# Anglo-Saxon", I think I'd reply, "oh okay, I think I'm Norman too".

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I don't think pope is capitalised.

The Irish seem to.

RTE is the national broadcaster in Ireland:



One of their largest newspapers:

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Actually the British media increasingly use the term Anglo-Saxon too. It's been noticeable in the past 15 years.

Examples:

The Guardian:


Telegraph:


Financial Times:


BBC (David Davis was the Brexit secretary in the British government after 2016):

Décidément, vous n'avez pas le don de vous faire aimer!

[Curmudgeon]

That's Ireland. Certainly I think Coptic and Orthydox Christians would disagree with that.

While full Catholic Emancipation (the franchise and state employment) in the United Kingdom did not occur until the 1830s, there was tolerance, unlike in France and Spain where Protestants had to flee for their lives. Often you will hear English surnames that sound French. These are the descendants of the Huguenots who fled persecution in France. Particularly common in London and area.

Compare too the tolerance after 1759 in the Province of Quebec with the general practices in Latin America.

The Dutch and the Scots are not thieves.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

That's Ireland. Certainly I think Coptic and Orthydox Christians would disagree with that.

While full Catholic Emancipation (the franchise and state employment) in the United Kingdom did not occur until the 1830s, there was tolerance, unlike in France and Spain where Protestants had to flee for their lives. Often you will hear English surnames that sound French. These are the descendants of the Huguenots who fled persecution in France. Particularly common in London and area.

Compare too the tolerance after 1759 in the Province of Quebec with the general practices in Latin America.

The Dutch and the Scots are not thieves.

Maybe not thieves but if you go back far enough in history, and argument could be made that Ulster Scots were perhaps "interlopers" in Ireland. Of course at this point they've been there for a very long time...

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

While full Catholic Emancipation (the franchise and state employment) in the United Kingdom did not occur until the 1830s, there was tolerance, unlike in France and Spain where Protestants had to flee for their lives.

Entirely preposterous! The Test Acts in the UK were repealed only in 1829, whereas in France the Edict of Tolerance (which restored civil rights to the Protestants) was issued in 1788. Also, Protestantism in France was protected by the Edict of Nantes issued in 1598, at a time when Catholicism was atrociously persecuted in the UK (including by executing Catholic priests and believers). In the beginning of the 17th century France was the most tolerant kingdom in Europe along with Poland, whereas Britain was essentially hell on Earth for dissenters (which is why so many English people left to America). Persecution of Protestantism came gradually in France after the 1640s, and culminated with the repealing of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, which banned Protestantism in the old part of the kingdom (but never in the newer part where Lutheranism and Calvinism were always legally recognized), but the worst excesses were over by 1720, and from the 1720s to the Edict of Tolerance the remaining Protestants were not actively persecuted anymore (although they did not enjoy full civil rights, except in the newer part of the kingdom, with the French king even appointing Lutherans in the highest administrative positions in Strasbourg, which shocked many Catholics).

So in a nutshell:
- before 1660: France far more tolerant than the UK
- from the 1660s to the 1710s: France about as bad as the UK in its intolerance
- from the 1720s to the 1780s: France more or less like the UK (laws still officially banning the other religion, but in practice little persecution, but no full civil rights)
- from 1788 to 1829: France far more tolerant than the UK again, even granting full civil rights to the Jews in the 1790s, the first country in Europe to do so

[New Brisavoine]

According to Jean Quatremer, the long-time Libération correspondent in Brussels, who is the most knowledgeable journalist about inner EU dealings, Canada would join France, Germany, the UK, Norway (they have a €bn214 sovereign fund), and perhaps even Turkey to form a new "security council" of Europe that would oversee the rearmament of Europe. A sort of mini-NATO (the old NATO becoming essentially an empty shell now that the US have reneged on it).

I don't know whether your next government will continue down that line after your federal elections, but if they do that basically means Canada breaking with the US. Quite Earth shattering...

https://www.liberation.fr/international/...sir-20250302_HTPTSWF5YFG3ZGIYEQ2FXC75HA/

PS: The article also talks about France extending its nuclear umbrella to the rest of Europe (now that US protection is gone), something Paris has long proposed and the other European countries always refused, because "they've always prefered a distant and benevolent protection [from Washington DC] rather than a close and cumbersome protection [from Paris]", but this reluctance has now been thrown out the window (as per Friedrich Merz this week). It's unclear whether Canada would also request an extension of this French nuclear umbrella. My feeling if if the Conservatives win they probably won't (as this would be seen as a casus belli in Washington DC).