Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[dleung]

Originally Posted by JHikka

If the bookstore were French-only and operating in Vancouver i'm sure Acajack would be calling for a federal inquiry into the treatment of official language minorities in Canada, but since it's just an Anglophone in Montreal she's at worst lying and at best exaggerating. Rinse, wash, repeat. Nothing to see here. How about those not-bilingual-enough border agents in Ontario, though?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not taking a side in this bunfight but I will say, this type of toddler-like behaviour by adults is becoming increasingly common. I don't think you can chalk all of it up to mental illness. The standards of decorum are eroding pretty quickly.

Definitely agree.

In France they refer to this trend as "incivilité".

Far-right (likely) presidential candidate Éric Zemmour is actually riding on this, in addition to a number of other shibboleths.

Hope that's the right word.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

I wouldn't dismiss her out of hand: People working in customer-facing roles, especially in an easily accessible urban areas, often experience a shocking level of harassment from the public on a frequent basis. Much of that comes from people with mental health and addiction issues, although that's not always easy to tell from behind the counter (nor does it make the experience any less jarring/distressing). This type of harassment really can't be used to gauge the intensity of an issue in the wider social discourse; however, the topic of the harassment doesn't appear out of thin air either.

I worked in customer service and the service industry for about 15 years, much of it in highly frequented central Toronto locations. You would not believe some of the things members of the public said to me, my coworkers and/or other patrons no less how frequently incidents like these occurred. I traded in for a white collar a number of years ago, and I have no doubt that those who spend their days in front of a screen have had little to no exposure to this type of harassment.

I've worked with the public and so has my wife. Though yes it's been a while. My kids all work with the public right now and have for several years. As do my nephews and nieces. They see all kinds and tell lots of stories.

I don't disagree that things have probably gotten worse in recent years.

That said I would still highly doubt that a nice bookstore (even if it sells books in English) in a hipster area like Plateau Mont-Royal would be the target of unruly patrons on a regular basis.

As I said: I can believe it may have happened more than once. But regularly? Naaah.

Sorry.

And BTW I'd regularly admit that some Quebec nationalists can be hotheads and might protest and make a scene on occasion.

I just can't believe that there aren't a gazillion better targets for their frustration than this specific bookstore.

But who knows?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Definitely agree.

In France they refer to this trend as "incivilité".

I agree too. Yet I think people project their own biases onto this phenomenon and tell themselves that their bogeymen are behind it. For the right wing this is left wingers (angry SJWs) and immigrants and then for the left wing it's anti-vaxxers at the moment (Trumpists, QAnon, whatever in the US, the Alberta wannabes, etc.).

I think the elephant in the room is the atomization of society that has happened due to a feedback loop of "neoliberalism" (overused term but I mean simply going for GDP/globalization/jobs/consumerism while ignoring "soft" aspects of quality of life or maybe not even having any clear sense of purpose in life at all) and declining cultural/social cohesion (mostly religion, which I am not a fan of, but I can accept that it is/was positive for many people). All these other factors are related (being pro-Trump can make you feel like you're in a club, and cultural diversity can make it hard for everybody to feel cultural cohesion) but I don't think they're a root cause or unfixable.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree too. Yet I think people project their own biases onto this phenomenon and tell themselves that their bogeymen are behind it. For the right wing this is left wingers (angry SJWs) and immigrants and then for the left wing it's anti-vaxxers at the moment (Trumpists, QAnon, whatever in the US, the Alberta wannabes, etc.).

I think the elephant in the room is the atomization of society that has happened due to a feedback loop of "neoliberalism" (overused term but I mean simply going for GDP/globalization/jobs/consumerism while ignoring "soft" aspects of quality of life or maybe not even having any clear sense of purpose in life at all) and declining cultural/social cohesion (mostly religion, which I am not a fan of, but I can accept that it is/was positive for many people). All these other factors are related (being pro-Trump can make you feel like you're in a club, and cultural diversity can make it hard for everybody to feel cultural cohesion) but I don't think they're a root cause or unfixable.

You have tied it to some pretty high level social factors, but I wonder how much of it comes down to the fact that in, say, 1976, if you caused an obnoxious scene in a store or refused to pay bus fare, there was a good chance that some security guards or cops would come down and rough you up.

I'm not saying we should necessarily go back to the "old ways", but there is clearly a large segment of the population that responded to the stick.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by esquire

You have tied it to some pretty high level social factors, but I wonder how much of it comes down to the fact that in, say, 1976, if you caused an obnoxious scene in a store or refused to pay bus fare, there was a good chance that some security guards or cops would come down and rough you up.

Maybe. I guess I'm skeptical that police did this much. Were they really what kept everybody in line, even in the small towns that were most orderly yet often didn't even have police?

I just visited a rural area and it was much more civil than where I live. It has 0 police officers most of the time. On the flip side it is much more "gossipy" and you can get a bad reputation there easily.

I think there are a lot of factors that all feed together to create an outcome. But my guess is social norms play a big role, and a lot of the worst-behaved people probably don't have a lot of social supports nor are many tied into any social group really. They have a sense of anonymity in cities, and in many cases ever-present stress.

[Acajack]

I also think that technology has made people more socially isolated. Not just that we talk to and frequent our neighbours less, but also that our online lives (and where and who they lead us to when we actually do get out there) make us surrounded more and more by the like-minded and people similar to us.

I am not just talking about socio-political discussion forums.

I am talking about a steady diet of cooking shows, or real housewives, or sci-fi or violent action movies or some specific sports, or whatever...

More and more we are with people who are like us who like the same stuff as us and who think like us.

I mean, people have always gravitated towards people who are similar to themselves. This isn't new.

But I would submit that we used to have way more exposure to those who are different from us, and their various "quirks" (or at least things that seem like quirks to us). The way society was set up gave us no choice.

It's not everyone but I think that a lot of people are simply no longer used to having to interact with people who are really different from them.

This is highly ironic as society has never been more diverse and interconnected (technology, transportation, etc.)

Also, working from home during the pandemic has also exacerbated the isolation phenomenon for millions of us.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I also think that technology has made people more socially isolated. Not just that we talk to and frequent our neighbours less, but also that our online lives (and where and who they lead us to when we actually do get out there) make us surrounded more and more by the like-minded and people similar to us.

To me this falls under a similar umbrella. We let big companies do whatever with social media etc. regardless of the impact on society. Canada used to be quite interventionist with broadcast media but it was a free-for-all on YouTube or Netflix for a while. And in practice I think there are a lot of coordination problems that lead people to make seemingly better micro choices that add up badly in aggregate. Maybe getting your news on FB is an easy default to slip into but it might not truly be better for you than having vibrant local journalism. And the kids might have more fun hanging out in person without Instagram. Nobody gets to pick between those things explicitly; they're led by the companies/marketing and their social environment.

I don't have strong feelings about what should be done or if anything could be done. I don't think we can or should go back to the 1960's. I do think we should be more critical of some new technologies that are driven/controlled by large corporations and ask if they are truly serving us well, and sometimes collective action to improve society is OK. We did it with smoking.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I mean, I was at a pizza place last night and a customer was yelling at the cashier to go back to India and that he was going to call the cops because he charged him too much for a slice of pizza. People with mental illnesses do exist, but there are also just simply assholes amongst us. I shouldn't have to physically stand between an asshole and a cashier until they leave at 10PM on a Tuesday but, well, you know.

If the bookstore were French-only and operating in Vancouver i'm sure Acajack would be calling for a federal inquiry into the treatment of official language minorities in Canada, but since it's just an Anglophone in Montreal she's at worst lying and at best exaggerating. Rinse, wash, repeat. Nothing to see here. How about those not-bilingual-enough border agents in Ontario, though?

Haha after the federal election I looked up how common/popular the French language was in Vancouver thinking it was up around 15% of the population. Nope. It was rounded to 0.0% !! I forget the exact number but something like 1800 people out of 2.5 million?? I couldn't believe how small it was!

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Haha after the federal election I looked up how common/popular the French language was in Vancouver thinking it was up around 15% of the population. Nope. It was rounded to 0.0% !! I forget the exact number but something like 1800 people out of 2.5 million?? I couldn't believe how small it was!

8% of healthcare workers in BC know French but less than 1% use it for work.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-657-x/89-657-x2021005-eng.htm

No province west of Quebec has an official language minority (French) proportion above 5%.

The figure you saw was likely for Knowledge of Official Languages which gives 1,100 as a total for Vancouver CMA (0.0% of pop.); however this can be deceiving as this only covers single responses. English-French respondents total 172,140 (7.1% of CMA pop.). Only 1.3% of respondents report using French at work at all.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Haha after the federal election I looked up how common/popular the French language was in Vancouver thinking it was up around 15% of the population. Nope. It was rounded to 0.0% !! I forget the exact number but something like 1800 people out of 2.5 million?? I couldn't believe how small it was!

It's more like 25,000 francophones actually. Which is a miniscule share of the population it's true.

But if you initally thought that Vancouver was 15% francophone then with all due respect you started out with this from a "low information" position.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

* Chretien was a strong monarchist and enjoyed speaking French with both the Queen and Prince Philip. He quips a few times, that if not for the crown, French-Canadians would be English-speakers in an American state.

I agree with this. People forget that the British Crown's guarantee of Quebec's language and religious rights was an actual grievance in the American Declaration of Independence. Look no further than Louisiana to see how that would have gone.

In the modern world, I actually think an independent Quebec would quickly find itself far more Anglicized than they imagine, a necessity of operating in the modern world. Canada, for better or worse, provides some strategic depth to Quebec, with additional French speakers and a broader imposition of the French language.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I agree with this. People forget that the British Crown's guarantee of Quebec's language and religious rights was an actual grievance in the American Declaration of Independence. Look no further than Louisiana to see how that would have gone.

In the modern world, I actually think an independent Quebec would quickly find itself far more Anglicized than they imagine, a necessity of operating in the modern world. Canada, for better or worse, provides some strategic depth to Quebec, with additional French speakers and a broader imposition of the French language.

I disagree. Quebec would likely be more Francophone in a world where it is a separate country.

The British - despite being not exactly among history's most gentle colonial masters - had to yield to reality on the ground. There would be no way they could ever have imposed a mandate of English without the angry mob coming to voice their opinion in Quebec. The British just did that imposition in a more subtle manner.

At what cost independence? Both parts would be weaker IMO. We'd have most of the same annoyances as before as we'd still be neighbours, but with a much less formal method of dealing with those problems. I've come to view our relationship as less one of any real affection, but a partnership that mostly allows for resisting the worst impulses of the other.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I agree with this. People forget that the British Crown's guarantee of Quebec's language and religious rights was an actual grievance in the American Declaration of Independence. Look no further than Louisiana to see how that would have gone.

.

I suppose if you isolate the specific period around 1763 (Treaty of Paris), 1776 (US Independence) and the War of 1812, this is a valid point that could me made.

Beyond that, though, once the matter of the existence of the US vs. distinct entity or entities north of the border was largely settled, I think it's highly debatable whether the eventual setup turned out to be the best one for Canadiens (francophones), as opposed to them hypothetically choosing a more independent route at various junctures of history (Rebellion of 1837-39, Union Act of 1840, Confederation of 1867).

[MolsonExport]

Without the BNA and Confederation, Quebec would long ago have been conquered/absorbed by the Americans. And Montreal would now be as English as New Orleans.
Thankfully that never happened.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Without the BNA and Confederation, Quebec would long ago have been conquered/absorbed by the Americans. And Montreal would now be as English as New Orleans.
Thankfully that never happened.

And what would have happened to the other provinces? Would they have been gobbled up by the US as well?

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And what would have happened to the other provinces? Would they have been gobbled up by the US as well?

Probably.

America viewed annexing Canada as inevitable until the War of 1812. If not for Quebec manpower, stationing and logistics, the British very well could have lost that war. Maybe Napoleon eyes up Quebec if it is independent in 1812.

I don't think Confederation happens if Quebec is not under British control. Upper Canada would have about 90% of the population of a Quebec-less Canada in 1867, and I don't think Maritime provinces would have been eager to join such a disproportionate relationship.

Canada would have struggled to project power west of Southern Ontario if we lacked Quebec. Access to the Saint Lawrence and Hudson Bay would have been conflicts that easily could descend into war.

A disunited Canada is easy pickings for the Yanks.

It is a miracle that Canada made it through the 150 years of aggressive American expansion. I don't think we're as lucky without Quebec.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And what would have happened to the other provinces? Would they have been gobbled up by the US as well?

This was the main impetus for confederation - a fear of American expansionism following the civil war. They had the largest army in the world at the time, and had ill feeling regarding the British Empire due to perceived southern favouritism during the war due to the cotton trade.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And what would have happened to the other provinces? Would they have been gobbled up by the US as well?

quite possibly. And surely they would all still be French-speaking states.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Probably.

America viewed annexing Canada as inevitable until the War of 1812. If not for Quebec manpower, stationing and logistics, the British very well could have lost that war. Maybe Napoleon eyes up Quebec if it is independent in 1812.

I don't think Confederation happens if Quebec is not under British control. Upper Canada would have about 90% of the population of a Quebec-less Canada in 1867, and I don't think Maritime provinces would have been eager to join such a disproportionate relationship.

Canada would have struggled to project power west of Southern Ontario if we lacked Quebec. Access to the Saint Lawrence and Hudson Bay would have been conflicts that easily could descend into war.

A disunited Canada is easy pickings for the Yanks.

And don't forget that a lot of the English population in Upper Canada were Americans who arrived a considerable period of time after the Revolutionary War (hence not Loyalists), and were simply looking for good farmland. Their loyalties at the beginning of the War of 1812 were highly questionable.