Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Mandarin and Russian are, and will continue to be important regional languages in central and east Asia, but since neither country developed worldwide empires, they will never be "world" languages. The world languages are, and will continue to be English, Spanish and French.

Chinese will become a more popular language for English speakers to learn and there will be more native English speakers who have early exposure to China or Chinese and so find it much easier to acquire.

I think of it more like say German but for a country that's going to be 10x more prominent. German is a language with a lot of speakers, and semi-popular to study, but it is not a global lingua franca.

I won't remotely pretend to be an expert on China but a lot of Western politicians, media figures, etc. seem to lose their minds when they talk about it (in lio terms, "unhinged" ). Either it's the Great Evil or another (dated) perspective (Bush era or earlier) is that they will turn into a Western-style country merely by engaging in foreign trade and some market economics. The reality is clearly much more nuanced.

It is surprisingly NON-expansionist for how big and powerful it is, although it has some geopolitical weaknesses and rivals. It's clearly an inherently powerful country that just happened to have extremely bad luck and bad governance for a while. Its government tends to run it in a self-interested way, unsurprisingly, without much regard for a lot of Western principles which Western countries also don't follow that well.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is surprisingly NON-expansionist for how big and powerful it is, although it has some geopolitical weaknesses and rivals. It's clearly an inherently powerful country that just happened to have extremely bad luck and bad governance for a while. Its government tends to run it in a self-interested way, unsurprisingly, without much regard for a lot of Western principles which Western countries also don't follow that well.

1. The irony of the Quebec thread being hijacked for non-Quebec/language purposes amuses me.

2. I think China's leaders have learned from the mistakes the US and USSR made. They've learned that a lighter touch makes fewer long-term enemies and that real power comes from being rich. While the US and USSR wanted to play the world geopolitics game in both sense - economic and military, I don't get the sense the Chinese have that same ambition, because you waste a lot of effort, resources and goodwill having a military presence everywhere.

Bonus points for authoritarian regimes that play ball with China: no patronizing human rights chats from Western leaders that are otherwise disinterested in your country. Mostly China is content to have economic access and will incentivize whomever is in power. Easy-peasy.

Whether China can translate its current gains into long-term prosperity and how much more easy gain can be yielded from innovation are different questions. In a certain sense, China's more 'collectivist' approach and population's ability to endure discomfort for a greater cause might allow them to outlast Western societies that are ever more fragmented and demanding. History and time will tell.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is surprisingly NON-expansionist for how big and powerful it is, although it has some geopolitical weaknesses and rivals.

Are you sure? They'd be all over Africa for the gigantic reserve of natural resources (lots of ores necessary to contemporary industry out there) and they're very aggressive towards anything of the Pacific ocean.
They want a modern Silk Road to Europe, mainly under their control, of course...

Heck yes, they'd be turning expansionist. Very much. Their own soil is not enough for their ambitions, given the size of their population.

Speaking of which, their demography might be their worst weakness. Their one-child policy is still causing some serious issues to their society. Their old backward leaders miscalculated the aftermath of their insane authoritarian policies.
Also, just as any human society, the Chinese are hungry for freedom, which their Communist Party doesn't care much about.
So they're somehow weak in some respects, probably not as fearsome as often described in the serious media. I agree on that.

Nevertheless, tomorrow's world will not be the same. It will not be as Eurocentric as it used to be, because the Chinese will never let themselves starve again.
That's only fair like justice, when you get over yourself and actually think about it.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by wave46

In a certain sense, China's more 'collectivist' approach and population's ability to endure discomfort for a greater cause might allow them to outlast Western societies that are ever more fragmented and demanding. History and time will tell.

Another aspect is cultural output, influence, and soft power. I am not sure Western countries are losing that game or even in decline there.

What's China's foreign student enrollment compared to the US, UK, Canada, or Australia? I'd guess small. How many people outside of China watch Chinese movies or follow Chinese media outlets or read Chinese literature? When it comes to internet services they tend to create their own internal bubble but the American services tend to be for everyone else.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Are you sure? They'd be all over Africa for the gigantic reserve of natural resources (lots of ores necessary to contemporary industry out there) and they're very aggressive towards anything of the Pacific ocean.

The way that Pacific geopolitics are viewed is hugely slanted against China. It is similar to Russia. Both countries face an uphill battle at their doorstep.

I'm skeptical that they are going to control Africa in the long run. Africa is growing rapidly too. And China cannot even control South Korea, Taiwan, or Japan. North Korea is totally off the rails and is likely to implode someday. I think we are headed toward a more uniformly developed, a more advanced, more peaceful, and multipolar world. Not one where China becomes the new US. This is just my opinion and I could of course be wrong.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is surprisingly NON-expansionist for how big and powerful it is...

It's only been on an upward economic path for forty years, and has only been what could reasonably called a "geopolitical titan" for maybe ten or twenty years.

Give it time.

I might be wrong, we all might be wrong, but it would be surprising if China's expansionist economic might didn't continue to bump up against smaller countries and essentially make them beholden to it, such as Cambodia is currently, and that said continued long march (see what I did there?) will eventually create friction and sparks leading to saber-rattling and maybe even border area occupations.

It pains me to say it, but it's almost inevitable that Taiwan is going to be taken into the bosom of the motherland sooner rather than later. If they held fervently to that aim while they were the sick Communist man of Asia killing millions of their citizens, how could they possibly resist now that they probably have the military might and the collective will to actually do it?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I might be wrong, we all might be wrong, but it would be surprising if China's expansionist economic might didn't continue to bump up against smaller countries and essentially make them beholden to it, such as Cambodia is currently, and that said continued long march (see what I did there?) will eventually create friction and sparks leading to saber-rattling and maybe even border area occupations.

I think one underappreciated factor here is how countries tend to rapidly asymptotically approach some new norm as they develop. People tend to linearly project forward from that and overestimate where the country will land in the future. Back in the 70's and 80's Japan was going to take over the world. But it is much easier to play catch up than it is to overtake the global economic frontrunners. I think that in 20-30 years there will be new "stars" taking over the world.

With China, people tend to forget that many other countries are growing too. Many of these are China's client states or potential client states. For example Vietnam is outgrowing China right now. South Korea outgrew China for many years and is far ahead now. The prospects of China controlling the Korean peninsula were better in the 1950's and 60's than it is today. Not saying that is impossible, but they probably lost ground.

Another aspect is that communication around the world is much easier. While I don't believe the story that every country will reinvent itself into a clone of the US once it hits a certain level of economic development, I think there's a lot more sympathy for foreigners today than there was 50 or 100 years ago and dialogue is much easier. I like watching "random people on the street get interviewed about basic political questions" type videos sometimes and a bunch are done in Beijing or Shanghai. The people give pretty perceptive and nuanced answers (although they will not speak out in certain ways that might get them in trouble). I doubt taxi drivers and janitors had the same insight in Mao-era China.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by rousseau

It's only been on an upward economic path for forty years, and has only been what could reasonably called a "geopolitical titan" for maybe ten or twenty years.

Give it time.

I might be wrong, we all might be wrong, but it would be surprising if China's expansionist economic might didn't continue to bump up against smaller countries and essentially make them beholden to it, such as Cambodia is currently, and that said continued long march (see what I did there?) will eventually create friction and sparks leading to saber-rattling and maybe even border area occupations.

It pains me to say it, but it's almost inevitable that Taiwan is going to be taken into the bosom of the motherland sooner rather than later. If they held fervently to that aim while they were the sick Communist man of Asia killing millions of their citizens, how could they possibly resist now that they probably have the military might and the collective will to actually do it?

I think whipping up nationalism and actually doing something about it are different things. Honestly, I think the PRC almost needs an enemy to maintain its legitimacy - keeping the ROC/Taiwan painted as the enemy at the doorstep allows the existential threat to exist.

I've also just have a feeling that the PRC's leadership knows that invading and holding a foreign country isn't as easy or painless as it looks in current day of asymmetrical warfare, much less making it bow to one's power long-term. They've watched the Iraq War and the United States' trouble with it.

I suspect the PRC will simply use economic leverage at a point when it can do that. It's a lot less messy, it doesn't come with the downside of combat nor dealing with the problems of population pacification and when the victim's leadership comes around to your point-of-view, they can be incentivized to tow your line. Think of it as a junkie-dealer relationship.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by rousseau

It's only been on an upward economic path for forty years, and has only been what could reasonably called a "geopolitical titan" for maybe ten or twenty years.

Give it time.

I might be wrong, we all might be wrong, but it would be surprising if China's expansionist economic might didn't continue to bump up against smaller countries and essentially make them beholden to it, such as Cambodia is currently, and that said continued long march (see what I did there?) will eventually create friction and sparks leading to saber-rattling and maybe even border area occupations.

It pains me to say it, but it's almost inevitable that Taiwan is going to be taken into the bosom of the motherland sooner rather than later. If they held fervently to that aim while they were the sick Communist man of Asia killing millions of their citizens, how could they possibly resist now that they probably have the military might and the collective will to actually do it?

Re Taiwan, yes, if China wins the coming war ...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by wave46

1. The irony of the Quebec thread being hijacked for non-Quebec/language purposes amuses me.

I expect JHikka is about to create a new thread from the last page of this one (The Great "What do Canadians anticipate will be the relative power of China on the global chessboard in the coming decades?" Thread).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by wave46

I suspect the PRC will simply use economic leverage at a point when it can do that.

China is in a relatively difficult situation in that it has a ring of neighbours who are well-connected to the global economy via marine shipping, air, network backbones, etc. China does not naturally mediate trade between Taiwan or Vietnam or Japan and the rest of the world.

The territories it can easily oppress/control are in a traditional way are places like Xinjiang.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

1. The irony of the Quebec thread being hijacked for non-Quebec/language purposes amuses me.
.

I know you are not insinuating that we are or would, but no one would complain about Quebec issues needing their own thread, with no other issues admitted, and no OT drifts tolerated.

We're not that immature.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Mandarin and Russian are, and will continue to be important regional languages in central and east Asia, but since neither country developed worldwide empires, they will never be "world" languages. The world languages are, and will continue to be English, Spanish and French.

North America - English and Spanish
South America - Spanish and Portuguese
Europe - English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Russian
Asia - Mandarin, Russian, Hindi, Arabic and Indonesian
Africa - English, French and Arabic
Oceania - English and French

Continental Spread:

English - 4
French - 3
Spanish - 3
Russian - 2
Arabic - 2
Mandarin - 1
Portuguese - 1
German - 1
Italian - 1
Hindi - 1

I love that you didn’t include french in North America. Freudian slip ?

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

I love that you didn’t include french in North America. Freudian slip ?

If we consider Haiti and the French Carabean islands, we easily get another 10M ++ French speakers there.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

I love that you didn’t include french in North America. Freudian slip ?

French is a daily language for less than 2% of North Americans, I would think. Not sure what the cut-off is, though.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

If we consider Haiti and the French Carabean islands, we easily get another 10M ++ French speakers there.

Okay, maybe 3%.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

I love that you didn’t include french in North America. Freudian slip ?

No, not a Freudian slip.

While French is unquestionably an important (and official) language in Canada, it is far, far behind in North America.

There are about 350 million native English speakers in North America, and probably over 200 million Spanish speakers. There are fewer than 20 million French speakers, probably no more than 2-3% of the continent's population.

This observation may not be popular in Quebec, but is factual nonetheless.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by Andy6

French is a daily language for less than 2% of North Americans, I would think. Not sure what the cut-off is, though.

And there are 467,000 francophones in Oceania, the population of Laval, and yet he included them. They represent 0,3% of all francophones in the world.



Source

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

No, not a Freudian slip.

While French is unquestionably an important (and official) language in Canada, it is far, far behind in North America.

There are about 350 million native English speakers in North America, and probably over 200 million Spanish speakers. There are fewer than 20 million French speakers, probably no more than 2-3% of the continent's population.

This observation may not be popular in Quebec, but is factual nonetheless.

I'm not surprise coming from you.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

I'm not surprise coming from you.

No offence was intended. In general, I chose the two most prominent languages from each continent. For some continents, this was not practical, as there were multiple codominant languages (Europe, Asia).

It is an unquestionable fact that the two dominant languages in North America are English and Spanish. The #3 language is far, far behind.

I wasn't picking on French either. Even though there are not many French speakers in Oceania, it is the dominant language in at least a couple of countries (Polynesia and New Caledonia), and is still the #2 (world) language behind English in that region.

Similarly, I didn't include English as a language in South America (although it is in Guyana and the Falklands), nor in Asia (although it is an official language in countries such as India and Singapore). There are probably more English speakers in Asia than in the British Isles, but in terms of regional importance, it is still far behind other Asian languages such as Mandarin and Hindi. If anything, I should have included Japanese as a major Asian language, although I don't think it has the regional reach that Chinese does.

Again, no offence was intended.