Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Yes it does.

It is well known that perfectly bilingual Acadians will suddenly lose their ability to converse in English when confronted with an anglophone police officer at a traffic stop.

MonctonRad, you're doing this all wrong.

This is the way:

1. Learn French.
2. Forget English when the RCMP cruiser is flashing lights in rear-view mirror: "Désolé, je ne parle pas anglais"
3. Enjoy consequence-free high-speed motoring, unlike those Anglo losers.

Think of it as a perk of 'sticking it to the man' and expanding one's language skills at the same time!

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Binour

In conclusion, the Quebec Act of 1774 was really a concession made to the Canadiens and it is linked to the American revolution. No love here, pragmatism.

The real sentiments of the English will later be revealed by the Durham report and the union of the Lower and Upper Canada, blatantly aiming to eradicate French.

The British Crown had no love of the Irish, and grudgingly tolerated the Scots, despite being in the same country (at the time for the Irish).

Anyone who thinks the British Crown had any love whatsoever for French-speaking habitants of a far-away colony is definitely looking at it with rose-coloured (see what I did there?) glasses.

Now, would throwing in with the Americans have been a better deal for Quebec? For awhile, maybe.

This sort of comes down to a longer-term strategy though. If the British were extirpated from North America by the United States, and the English-speaking portions of it eventually become a very large United States of America, does a relatively small polity retain its independence under those conditions? Europe does have lots of small countries, so maybe? Europe also has no single country of anywhere near the power of the United States, so it is hard to say.

At least throwing their bets in with the other anti-United States party on the continent provides a measure of common alliance, if somewhat thin on other common ground.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The British Crown had no love of the Irish, and grudgingly tolerated the Scots, despite being in the same country (at the time for the Irish).

Anyone who thinks the British Crown had any love whatsoever for French-speaking habitants of a far-away colony is definitely looking at it with rose-coloured (see what I did there?) glasses.

Now, would throwing in with the Americans have been a better deal for Quebec? For awhile, maybe.

This sort of comes down to a longer-term strategy though. If the British were extirpated from North America by the United States, and the English-speaking portions of it eventually become a very large United States of America, does a relatively small polity retain its independence under those conditions? Europe does have lots of small countries, so maybe? Europe also has no single country of anywhere near the power of the United States, so it is hard to say.

At least throwing their bets in with the other anti-United States party on the continent provides a measure of common alliance, if somewhat thin on other common ground.

Had Quebec thrown in its lot with the USA French would have been eradicated from North America long ago.

[Binour]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The British Crown had no love of the Irish, and grudgingly tolerated the Scots, despite being in the same country (at the time for the Irish).

I know that, being from both Irish (my last name) and French ancestry.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The British Crown had no love of the Irish, and grudgingly tolerated the Scots, despite being in the same country (at the time for the Irish).

Anyone who thinks the British Crown had any love whatsoever for French-speaking habitants of a far-away colony is definitely looking at it with rose-coloured (see what I did there?) glasses.

Now, would throwing in with the Americans have been a better deal for Quebec? For awhile, maybe.

This sort of comes down to a longer-term strategy though. If the British were extirpated from North America by the United States, and the English-speaking portions of it eventually become a very large United States of America, does a relatively small polity retain its independence under those conditions? Europe does have lots of small countries, so maybe? Europe also has no single country of anywhere near the power of the United States, so it is hard to say.

At least throwing their bets in with the other anti-United States party on the continent provides a measure of common alliance, if somewhat thin on other common ground.

FYI this was discussed to some degree yesterday on previous pages.

[Acajack]

Have to say...

Given that it's 2022 and the usual tone of SSP, it's a bit weird to have so many messages basically saying "you guys were actually kinda lucky to have been colonized by us!".

[theman23]

You certainly are the one to tell us what our usual tone is.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Have to say...

Given that it's 2022 and the usual tone of SSP, it's a bit weird to have so many messages basically saying "you guys were actually kinda lucky to have been colonized by us!".

France ceding one of their colonies full of 1st - 4th generation European migrants to another imperial power is hardly the type of "colonizing" that is under scrutiny these days.

What the English did afterward to the Acadians could be seen as a type of post-conquest colonizing, but then again, the habitants at the time were colonizers themselves less than 100 years prior.

[Acajack]

As I said: it really does know no bounds!

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As I said: it really does know no bounds!

Well, aside from the establishment of a (primarily) Scottish merchant class in Montreal, the francophone habitants of Quebec were largely left alone by their English conquerors.

I would posit that the habitants suffered more abuse from the Roman Catholic clergy than they did from the Brits.

But, if that doesn't jive with your pre-existing narrative, there's nothing I can do about that

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As I said: it really does know no bounds!

Agreed.

Oh wait, I meant to quote myself.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Yes it does.

It is well known that perfectly bilingual Acadians will suddenly lose their ability to converse in English when confronted with an anglophone police officer at a traffic stop.

This is not generally a problem in southeastern or northern NB (most RCMP here are francophone), but this situation has arisen in places like southwestern NB. Usually the anglophone police officer will put in a request for a bilingual officer to attend the scene (slowing down the whole process, and removing another police officer from patrol), but occasionally, none is available, a traffic ticket is issued, the offender will challenge this in court on the basis on non compliance with the official languages act, and the ticket gets tossed.

A question for you (or Acajack) then - what happens if a unilingual Torontonian on his way to NS is stopped on the A-20 for an alleged speeding infraction and the SQ officer is unilingual francophone. Can the Torontonian challenge the speeding ticket in court, or is he shit out of luck..........

Would the same thing happen if an Anglophone is caught speeding in a francophone area? Would a bilingual Anglophone "forget" his French if a Francophone officer was to give him a ticket in the hope to have said ticket challenged?

This is an article about a ruling by the Supreme Court saying there is no constitutional right for a ticket in French in Alberta. I presume it also means that there is no constitutional right for a ticket in English in Québec, and, as per Acajack, tickets in Québec have English on the back and you could contest them in English. Weird that the so racist and closed-minded Québec has more respect for minority rights that the so broad-minded English Canada...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/...ets,passing%20laws%20in%20English%20only.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, aside from the establishment of a (primarily) Scottish merchant class in Montreal, the francophone habitants of Quebec were largely left alone by their English conquerors.

I would posit that the habitants suffered more abuse from the Roman Catholic clergy than they did from the Brits.

But, if that doesn't jive with your pre-existing narrative, there's nothing I can do about that

Oh, definitely, the clergy did a number on Québec. Why do you think Britain permitted the Catholic Church in Québec after the conquest? The Church could control the population much better than a militia could. It was a self-interested act from Britain, not an act of magnanimity to a former foe. Britain abused the French-Canadian population by proxy, thanks to the Church.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Had Quebec thrown in its lot with the USA French would have been eradicated from North America long ago.

It is not as black and white as it can seems.

Apparently, Ben Franklin wanted to make French a national language on the United States (ultimately, the United States doesn't have an official language, but English is the de facto one). That might have happened if Québec had joined the American Revolution. Also, Québec would have gotten more goodwill if they joined the Revolution from the Americans than they received as a conquered bothersome people in Canada by the British.

With the Louisiana purchase and the number of Francophones in the United States in general and in Québec (well, Canada in fact) in particular, the critical mass of francophones in the US would have been bigger. Would it have been enough to survive?

In the 19th Century, immigration to the United Stated was more international than to Canada (which was mainly from England), so the new immigrants did not necessarily speak English. A number of them would have integrated into the French population, heightening the number of Francophones. English immigrants that arrived in Canada did not come to integrate in the local French population, they came to join the ruling English population.

As mentioned on this thread, in the late 19th and early 20th Century, a lot of Québécois immigrated to the northern United States because of bad economic times that might not have happened if Québec had been part on the USA.

Finally, if French survives in Canada today, it wasn't by the magnanimity of Britain, it is because Britain failed to assimilate Francophone (and they tried, and tried...). However, that assimilation worked in most on English Canada. Without these assimilation policies and a bigger and more in control of its destiny francophone population (Britain was not interested to give too much power to French-Canadian and representation by population only came in Canada the day the English outnumbered the French...), Francophones would have been more numerous and would have had more tools to develop. I don't know if it would have been enough for French to thrive, but the face of North-America could have been very different.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

It is not as black and white as it can seems.

Apparently, Ben Franklin wanted to make French a national language on the United States (ultimately, the United States doesn't have an official language, but English is the de facto one). That might have happened if Québec had joined the American Revolution. Also, Québec would have gotten more goodwill if they joined the Revolution from the Americans than they received as a conquered bothersome people in Canada by the British.

With the Louisiana purchase and the number of Francophones in the United States in general and in Québec (well, Canada in fact) in particular, the critical mass of francophones in the US would have been bigger. Would it have been enough to survive?

In the 19th Century, immigration to the United Stated was more international than to Canada (which was mainly from England), so the new immigrants did not necessarily speak English. A number of them would have integrated into the French population, heightening the number of Francophones. English immigrants that arrived in Canada did not come to integrate in the local French population, they came to join the ruling English population.

As mentioned on this thread, in the late 19th and early 20th Century, a lot of Québécois immigrated to the northern United States because of bad economic times that might not have happened if Québec had been part on the USA.

Finally, if French survives in Canada today, it wasn't by the magnanimity of Britain, it is because Britain failed to assimilate Francophone (and they tried, and tried...). However, that assimilation worked in most on English Canada. Without these assimilation policies and a bigger and more in control of its destiny francophone population (Britain was not interested to give too much power to French-Canadian and representation by population only came in Canada the day the English outnumbered the French...), Francophones would have been more numerous and would have had more tools to develop. I don't know if it would have been enough for French to thrive, but the face of North-America could have been very different.

Seems like Francophile fan fiction. Why would new comers to an American Quebec be more likely to speak French than newcomers to Canadian Quebec these days? How is the French language doing in Louisiana?

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by theman23

Seems like Francophile fan fiction. Why would new comers to an American Quebec be more likely to speak French than newcomers to Canadian Quebec these days? How is the French language doing in Louisiana?

Joining an alliance of colonies against its controller can reap some privileges. And remember that at the time Frenches in general were getting a more positive press because of their help against Britain, a former French colony would have benefited from that goodwill.

As I said, it was a question of critical mass. Louisiana + Québec = greater numbers (that and the other factors I mentioned). And Louisiana was bought as a colony, a property, if Québec has joined, it would have joined as a state right from the beginning.

The only fan fiction here is the one that says the only reason there is still French in Québec is because of the generosity of the British.

[Acajack]

More than anything the continued presence of a vibrant French-speaking society in one corner of North America is due to an unlikely series of accidents of history.

It's not even primarily due to the determination and resilience of francophones that much, though sure that played a bit of a role too. (Canadian francophones outside Québec and Franco-Americans were cut from the same cloth, and look what happened to most of them.)

And anglo magnanimity as an explanation is laughable.

[Acajack]

As we see with the anglo community in Québec, or goings on in New Brunswick or federally, there are forces that will seize any opportunity to diminish French if they sense the winds are blowing in their favour.

We are seen by many as a hopefully temporary inconvenience and there is always a desire on their part for the problem to go away once and for all.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Oh, definitely, the clergy did a number on Québec. Why do you think Britain permitted the Catholic Church in Québec after the conquest? The Church could control the population much better than a militia could. It was a self-interested act from Britain, not an act of magnanimity to a former foe. Britain abused the French-Canadian population by proxy, thanks to the Church.

I seriously doubt that the English conquerors left the Catholic Church in place purposefully in order to oppress the habitant farmers of Quebec.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As we see with the anglo community in Québec, there are forces that will seize any opportunity to diminish English if we sense the winds are blowing in our favour.

They are seen by many as a (hopefully) temporary inconvenience and there is always a desire on our part for the problem to go away once and for all.

Fixed it for you.