Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Those dastardly Quebec Anglos. If only they knew their place...

"Those dastardly Canadians. If only they knew their place..."

................. -The MAGA Annexationist Movement

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

And I’m sorry, but I think it’s not nearly as nuanced as you seem to think it is. When it comes down to a vote to leave Canada or stay, that’s quite literally a black or white decision, no matter what sort of stipulation is made about continued association with Canada.

The hypothetical circumstances would be a third vote for Quebec to leave Canada or not… how exactly is the PQ going to convince millions of minorities in Quebec to vote for independence and vote for exchanging their Canadian rights and Canadian passports for Quebec rights and Quebec passports?

It’s just highly illogical and not at all a realistic scenario… sovereignty through other means remains Quebec’s only viable option.

No, but they might prefer a Québec passport to an American one. If Canada seems to be capitulating to American pressures to become a territory of the United States, a lot of people in Québec will prefer independence, including a great number of minorities. Canada has to play this one very carefully.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It is funny how it is fine to say what Parizeau infamously said back in '95 if you think it's good.

What he said was badly formulated, putting the blame on "ethnic voters", but factually, ethnic minorities did mostly vote no, which was their right. Also, Ottawa and their allies did spend money like Elon Musk to convince people to vote no.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Oh, you mean kind of like extrapolating French Canadian demographics based on a sample size of less than 100,000 people across 40 years and projecting it forwards 200 years across the second largest landmass in the world?

You have any convincing argument showing that French Canadian fertility between 1760-1810 would have been very different from what it was if Canada had remained under French sovereignty during that period? Because if you don't, there's no reason to assume that the population of French Canadians would have been any different from the one I gave for 1810.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

What he said was badly formulated, putting the blame on "ethnic voters", but factually, ethnic minorities did mostly vote no, which was their right. Also, Ottawa and their allies did spend money like Elon Musk to convince people to vote no.

Virtually every single community leader from these groups called for their members to vote ethnically:

"All Jews must vote Non."

"All Greeks must vote Non."

"All Italians must vote Non."

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

It takes capability, and will. This conversation started on the premise that France held Canada into the 1800s. The war against America was fought on a razor's edge when Canada did have the support of the empire most capable of protecting its overseas empire. At that time France was all-consumed on the continent. In the period between 1800 and 1815, the British captured Martinque, Gaudeloupe, St. Lucia, and the Indian Ocean territories. The French Fleet was largely confined to port after 1805 and the resources were not there to maintain extensive overseas operations. Even when they were at peace in 1801, they failed to retake Saint Domingue, and shortly thereafter, sold their last major North American holding for pennies on the dollar to the U.S. I don't see any of these historical facts to be demonstrative of the will or capability needed to maintain large overseas colonies.

France keeping Canada 50 more years in itself means that France would have made an extra effort on its navy (and its land army in Canada), otherwise it wouldn't have kept Canada 50 more years. Also, the American Revolution doesn't happen, because the reason why the American Revolution happened is precisely because the French threat up north was removed from the back of the American colonists, so they didn't need to stick to London anymore, and could push for independence. So no American Revolution, therefore no USA in 1800-1810. Also probably no French Revolution, since the participation of France in the American Revolution was one of the direct causes of the French Revolution.

But there would have been other events we can't foresee.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

No, but they might prefer a Québec passport to an American one. If Canada seems to be capitulating to American pressures to become a territory of the United States, a lot of people in Québec will prefer independence, including a great number of minorities. Canada has to play this one very carefully.

Hypothetically, maybe.

But at the moment there is no sign that Canada intends to capitulate to US pressures. Au contraire.

Another thing though is that there are also some minorities (including in Quebec, some of which are French speakers) who are in Canada only because they could not get into the US. They might not see capitulation to the Americans as something that is that undesirable.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But at the moment there is no sign that Canada intends to capitulate to US pressures. Au contraire.

Wait until unemployment rates in Ontario reach the 12%-15% zone...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Oh, you mean kind of like extrapolating French Canadian demographics based on a sample size of less than 100,000 people across 40 years and projecting it forwards 200 years across the second largest landmass in the world?

You started the alt history fantasies that were based on snapshots of what actually occurred.

Well, a real-life extrapolation of the French Canadian origin population from 1763 to 2025 actually goes from about 70,000 to 15-20 million people. Over 262 years. With little to no additional newcomers from France and not really that many from other places either. Not bad.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well, a real-life extrapolation of the French Canadian origin population from 1763 to 2025 actually goes from about 70,000 to 15-20 million people. Over 262 years. With little to no additional newcomers from France and not really that many from other places either. Not bad.

He seems to imply that if Canada had remained French, somehow the French Canadian fertility rate would have fallen, but he doesn't give any reason for that to happen.

The opposite is probably true. At a minimum the fertility rate would have remained the same, because the fundamental basis for it was still there: abundant land that only needed to be tilled and exploited, so why would their fertility have fallen? And if anything, it would probably have remained higher in the late 19th century and early 20th century that what it was in real history because they wouldn't have been constrained inside the tiny St Lawrence valley, or forced to migrate to New England, but could have expanded west all the way to the Pacific. Which is why I think, not even counting arrivals of new immigrants, you'd have more French Canadians today than your 15-20 million figure.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

It takes capability, and will. This conversation started on the premise that France held Canada into the 1800s. The war against America was fought on a razor's edge when Canada did have the support of the empire most capable of protecting its overseas empire. At that time France was all-consumed on the continent. In the period between 1800 and 1815, the British captured Martinque, Gaudeloupe, St. Lucia, and the Indian Ocean territories. The French Fleet was largely confined to port after 1805 and the resources were not there to maintain extensive overseas operations. Even when they were at peace in 1801, they failed to retake Saint Domingue, and shortly thereafter, sold their last major North American holding for pennies on the dollar to the U.S. I don't see any of these historical facts to be demonstrative of the will or capability needed to maintain large overseas colonies.

You have to go into far-flung alt histories like "The French Revolution wouldn't have happened if France held Quebec" to envision an outcome where early 19th century France was maintaining a strong transatlantic empire.

This is all very interesting historical fiction, but let's keep in mind that starting in 1776 it wasn't the British who were our neighbours, but the Americans.

If the British conquest of "Canada" (then French) doesn't happen in 1759-1763, then after 1776 the British presence in northern North America is greatly reduced: Canada is still French and the US is newly-independent, hostile to Britain for a good while still, and probably more favourable to France since the French assisted them during their Revolution.

Sure, the British could have made a play for Canada later on at any time for reasons XYZ, but as has been said with every increment of time that would have passed the geopolitical parameters and circumstances would have continued to shift, in North America, and on the home fronts in both France and Britain.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If the British conquest of "Canada" (then French) doesn't happen in 1759-1763, then after 1776 the British presence in northern North America is greatly reduced: Canada is still French and the US is newly-independent, hostile to Britain for a good while still, and probably more favourable to France since the French assisted them during their Revolution.

No way the 13 colonies would have launched a revolution against London if Canada had remained French. No way. London was their life insurance against what they perceived as a French papist threat. It is only AFTER France left the scene in North America that they rebelled against London.

The most likely scenario, if the UK had given Canada back to France in 1763 (in exchange for some French sugar colonies in the Caribbean, as the British were eager to, but in real history the French government preferred to keep all its sugar colonies and abandon Canada), is the usual Boston extremists would have pushed for another war against France and French Canada as early as the 1770s. For France to keep Canada 50 more years it means it would have had to seriously bolster its navy and its land army in Canada, and be prepared to face one war every 10 years or so against the American colonists united with London.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

He seems to imply that if Canada had remained French, somehow the French Canadian fertility rate would have fallen, but he doesn't give any reason for that to happen.

The opposite is probably true. At a minimum the fertility rate would have remained the same, because the fundamental basis for it was still there: abundant land that only needed to be tilled and exploited, so why would their fertility have fallen? And if anything, it would probably have remained higher in the late 19th century and early 20th century that what it was in real history because they wouldn't have been constrained inside the tiny St Lawrence valley, or forced to migrate to New England, but could have expanded west all the way to the Pacific. Which is why I think, not even counting arrivals of new immigrants, you'd have more French Canadians today than your 15-20 million figure.

And French Canadians were still very dominated by the Catholic church (which wanted lots of babies and big families) at the time.

We don't even have to look that far west. Southern Ontario has some pretty excellent farmland and is slightly milder than southern Quebec. It would have been a highly desirable area to settle. But after the British conquest, it was essentially reserved for Loyalists from the US and British settlers. French Canadians were not really welcome there and it was generally considered to be a hostile place for them. They only ever moved in decent numbers to Prescott and Russell counties east of Ottawa, which is right next to Quebec. Never much further than that.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

He seems to imply that if Canada had remained French, somehow the French Canadian fertility rate would have fallen, but he doesn't give any reason for that to happen.

The opposite is probably true. At a minimum the fertility rate would have remained the same, because the fundamental basis for it was still there: abundant land that only needed to be tilled and exploited, so why would their fertility have fallen? And if anything, it would probably have remained higher in the late 19th century and early 20th century that what it was in real history because they wouldn't have been constrained inside the tiny St Lawrence valley, or forced to migrate to New England, but could have expanded west all the way to the Pacific. Which is why I think, not even counting arrivals of new immigrants, you'd have more French Canadians today than your 15-20 million figure.

That's not what I've argued at all. It's undisputed that French Canadians had a significantly higher fertility rate until the effects of industrialization and urbanization took their toll just like they did on every other demographic group. What I'm saying is that populations tend to hit a threshold that is supported by geography and economic opportunity, and a French controlled Canada would have hit similar barriers to population growth as occurred in Western Canada, the Great Plains in the U.S. and countless other interior heartlands that offer an abundance of farmland but not much else. I believe the population of Quebec would not be drastically different whether they started with 20,000 people, 70,000 people, or 200,000 people, because exponential growth can accelerate from any number until you hit those caps that put pressure on continued population growth. If this weren't the case, than you would expect the population density of Southern Quebec to have been significantly higher than Southern Ontario in 1900 or even today but that is not the case. Whether you grow from natural births or immigration, it does not change the ability for people who expect a certain level of standard of living to sustain themselves on the same landmass. I disagree with the premise of measuring 70,000 to 15 million people and extrapolating that across vastly different geographies. I also think that including diaspora in that final number is counter-intuitive because conditions change outside of our physical borders.

I'm pushing back on the idea that a French Canada would have so significantly outpaced the historical growth we experienced. I think it's extremely dubious to project that Western Canada would have 20 times the population it did because French Canadians would smash through the "laziness threshold" or economic productivity caps that held back every other demographic group that settled there.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

That's not what I've argued at all. It's undisputed that French Canadians had a significantly higher fertility rate until the effects of industrialization and urbanization took their toll just like they did on every other demographic group. What I'm saying is that populations tend to hit a threshold that is supported by geography and economic opportunity, and a French controlled Canada would have hit similar barriers to population growth as occurred in Western Canada, the Great Plains in the U.S. and countless other interior heartlands that offer an abundance of farmland but not much else. I believe the population of Quebec would not be drastically different whether they started with 20,000 people, 70,000 people, or 200,000 people, because exponential growth can accelerate from any number until you hit those caps that put pressure on continued population growth. If this weren't the case, than you would expect the population density of Southern Quebec to have been significantly higher than Southern Ontario in 1900 or even today but that is not the case. Whether you grow from natural births or immigration, it does not change the ability for people who expect a certain level of standard of living to sustain themselves on the same landmass. I disagree with the premise of measuring 70,000 to 15 million people and extrapolating that across vastly different geographies. I also think that including diaspora in that final number is counter-intuitive because conditions change outside of our physical borders.

I'm pushing back on the idea that a French Canada would have so significantly outpaced the historical growth we experienced. I think it's extremely dubious to project that Western Canada would have 20 times the population it did because French Canadians would smash through the "laziness threshold" or economic productivity caps that held back every other demographic group that settled there.

I don't think the point is that the French Canadians were or are any less lazy than the homesteaders of other origins who were the main settlers on the Prairies. Only that French Canadians would have likely maintained similarly high fertility rates or even increased them on more vast territories that were even more favourable than Quebec, like the Prairies (abundance of arable land) or Ontario (abundance of arable land + milder climate).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We don't even have to look that far west. Southern Ontario has some pretty excellent farmland and is slightly milder than southern Quebec. It would have been a highly desirable area to settle.

I've never understood why it wasn't colonized earlier back in the days of French Canada. Total lack of foresight.

I guess one key factor was a totally random geographic feature: the fertile plains of the St Lawrence valley and the fertile plains of southern Ontario are separated by some infertile rough land between roughly the current Québec border and Kingston. So it probably blocked the southern expansion of settlements in the days of French Canada. The expansion of settlements couldn't happen from one village to the next as an oil leak, they would have had to send some parties more than 300 km away, crossing all that area of wilderness, before encountering fertile lands again.

That shows once again how history is the result of random events, or random stuff like this 300 km band of infertile territory. If this area had been as fertile as southern Ontario, then surely the expansion of French settlements from Montréal towards the south-west would have happened as early as the late 17th century, and by 1763 all of Ontario would have already had a large Francophone population everywhere.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

No way the 13 colonies would have launched a revolution against London if Canada had remained French. No way. London was their life insurance against what they perceived as a French papist threat. It is only AFTER France left the scene in North America that they rebelled against London.

The most likely scenario, if the UK had given Canada back to France in 1763 (in exchange for some French sugar colonies in the Caribbean, as the British were eager to, but in real history the French government preferred to keep all its sugar colonies and abandon Canada), is the usual Boston extremists would have pushed for another war against France and French Canada as early as the 1770s. For France to keep Canada 50 more years it means it would have had to seriously bolster its navy and its land army in Canada, and be prepared to face one war every 10 years or so against the American colonists united with London.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but this seems to contradict your previous points.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't think the point is that the French Canadians were or are any less lazy than the homesteaders of other origins who were the main settlers on the Prairies. Only that French Canadians would have likely maintained similarly high fertility rates or even increased them on more vast territories that were even more favourable than Quebec, like the Prairies (abundance of arable land) or Ontario (abundance of arable land + milder climate).

I agree, the population of French Canadians would obviously have been significantly higher than what it is today if France had maintained control of Canada for longer. My original post that started this was in response to the idea that French Canada would far exceed Argentina in population and the prairies could have 100 million people. This would require mega-sized metropolises where non exist today, and for exceptionally high fertility rates to have continued through the urbanization of the 20th century which just doesn't happen in any demographic group, Quebec included. Alternatively it would require immigration far in excess of the extremely generous rates that Canada has experienced historically.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I agree, the population of French Canadians would obviously have been significantly higher than what it is today if France had maintained control of Canada for longer. My original post that started this was in response to the idea that French Canada would far exceed Argentina in population and the prairies could have 100 million people. This would require mega-sized metropolises where non exist today, and for exceptionally high fertility rates to have continued through the urbanization of the 20th century which just doesn't happen in any demographic group, Quebec included. Alternatively it would require immigration far in excess of the extremely generous rates that Canada has experienced historically.

Thanks. I am not the one who talked about Argentina+ or 100 million on the Prairies, but a roughly Argentina-sized Canada of maybe 40 million people (that would be francophone and French-inspired administratively) I think is not really a far-fetched thing when you think about it.

Countries like Argentina and Brazil did have very high immigration (from Spain and Brazil, and many other countries). French Canada could have had a similar demographic history. The French were not very keen on leaving France from the early 1600s to the 1760s but there would likely have been periods where conditions in France would have made more people favourable to moving over here. Keeping in mind that in the 21st century for a decade or two close to 10,000 French are now moving to Canada (mostly Quebec) every year.

Though one other factor is that of those 15 (or 20) million I keep talking about, around half are now living in the United States. Would there have been less or more migration of French Canadians to the US had this place been French Canada instead of the Canada we know?

An interesting twist is that Canadian and American authorities were in agreement (some would say conspired) for French Canadians to move en masse to the NE US, as opposed to the Prairies, back in the day. This is because it was felt that existing industrial cities in the US would favour their assimilation more than the Prairies which were more of a tabula rasa where they were more likely to form their own homogenous communities and maintain their language, religion and customs. This explains why it was harder and especially costlier to move from Montreal to the Prairies than from somewhere like Ukraine.

[kool maudit]

Weren't the Lachine Rapids sort of the "end of the line" in the early days?