Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

... and the second most important city in the (rapidly growing) French-speaking world, second only to Paris.

The claim has been made since I was a kid, and while technically no longer true demographically (Kinshasa and even Abidjan if considered francophone cities are larger) but today ironically it seems less of a technicality and less boldly aspirational than it did in the 1980s.

It really is happening and it feels like that when you're there.

I think Montreal turning its back on Canada as a whole is a bit exaggerated, both by butthurt patriotic Canadians and bombastic Québécois nationalists. Being number two and a legacy big city is still a critically important tool in its toolbox, but no one there is crying about the fact that it no longer is and will never again be the uncontested metropolis of a country called "Canada".

Montreal today is far more successful city than it was in 1967. It's global and diversified and has demonstrated its resilience and ability to evolve.

Furthermore, it's a far better, more harmonious place to live.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think Montreal turning its back on Canada as a whole is a bit exaggerated, ironically both by butthurt patriotic Canadians and bombastic Québécois nationalists.

I'm not sure I've ever met this butthurt patriotic Canadian who is upset about Montreal in real life (I suspect most of them were dead by 2010 and most were from Montreal itself). For the most part it seems to have a low-ish profile in most of Canada, while Quebec City is nearly off the radar. The rest of Quebec has no "pull" at all, rightly or wrongly.

Meanwhile I was having dinner with some middle aged to older Albertans the other day and they were all practicing Spanish with each other because they go down to Mexico for a month every year.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I can't think of a scenario in which it either regained the largest stock exchange post-1960s or retained 'alpha city' status without being the finance capital.

Once it was gone, it was gone. Toronto always made more sense as the liaison between Canadian and U.S. markets, it just had to fight the fact that all of the wealthy English-speaking people had historical roots in Montreal.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

Montreal today is far more successful city than it was in 1967. It's global and diversified and has demonstrated its resilience and ability to evolve.

Furthermore, it's a far better, more harmonious place to live.

The "good life" is also spread out much more evenly across its population demographics.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Zeej

Montreal today is far more successful city than it was in 1967. It's global and diversified and has demonstrated its resilience and ability to evolve.

Furthermore, it's a far better, more harmonious place to live.

Montreal at its 'height' was actually quite a mean and volatile thing. St. Henri (des Tanneries) for a time had the highest infant mortality rate in the British Empire.

The built form that is now so charming is the inheritance of a tenement-era industrial boomtown. "Low overhead", as the old Scots preferred.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not sure I've ever met this butthurt patriotic Canadian who is upset about Montreal in real life (I suspect most of them were dead by 2010 and most were from Montreal itself). .

Perhaps my choice of descriptor was not the right one, but there are plenty of people on this very thread who are saying this type of stuff that points to Montreal squandering something that it had on a silver platter. I guess we could debate (or ask them) whether they think that was not the best outcome for the country overall, or if the impact was just on Montreal.

I mean... I coulda been a contenda...?

EDIT: Perhaps the butthurt patriotic Canadians who are upset at being snubbed are mostly upset at Quebec, with which Montreal is often conflated. And vice versa.

[kool maudit]

It rocked the boat not once, but twice. Its people burned down the parliament on the Place d'Youville. The morality tale of the country that came to be must of necessity scorn it to some degree. It was unavoidable.

And I have to think that some of those old mid-century Anglos might have already thought "this place might not be worth it".

Montreal was a restive place for a lot of reasons.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

"Thanks for coming out" is always easier to say when people's wallets don't get significantly lighter and standards of living remain relatively unchanged.

I was actually going to make the point that Quebec is perhaps more than ever in a position to say "no thanks".

In 2022 it's a far cry from the town in La Grande Séduction (remade in Newfoundland as The Grand Seduction) that is so desperate for a factory to set up shop there that it will do anything to attract it.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

e old mid-century Anglos might have already thought "this place might not be worth it".

To put a finer point on it, events may have required Vallières to remembered as an overheated writer, to say the least, but I'd be surprised if some of those old British Empire companies didn't have holdings, didn't even maybe know people in Salisbury (now Harare).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Perhaps my choice of descriptor was not the right one, but there are plenty of people on this very thread who are saying this type of stuff that points to Montreal squandering something that it had on a silver platter.

A lot of Torontonians post about it but I don't think they are upset about it. And I agree with their point that the idea that Toronto was nothing next to Montreal before a bunch of companies decamped due to language issues in the 70's is exaggerated. They were about the same size for a while and Toronto was ambitious and well-run on its own terms in the early postwar period.

I do think it is subtle and Quebec might be paying a price a lot of people don't appreciate. France is like this as well. I'd consider moving there but I'd need to take a big hit to my wages and material standard of living, so to me it's more of a tourism or retirement place. French immigration to Vancouver is actually pretty noticeable now; I think many of the more ambitious young French people end up in California. It's not necessarily about language issues per se, and may have more to do with the regulatory climate and taxes.

[kool maudit]

Jean Drapeau may appear to our eyes like an over-fastidious modernist working against the urbanity we hold dear, but he didn't exist in a vacuum. Sure, they didn't need to ban hot dog stands, but the old Montreal was a city of drunks, whores, orphans and disease as much as it was one of greystones and boulevards.

It was every bit as hard a place as more famous industrial fireplaces like Chicago and Manchester.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

That being said, Quebec already voluntarily underwent a metamorphosis that was undoubtedly far more economically damaging than Bill 96 (or likely any future language legislation) will be. If Francophones in Quebec still view those concessions from the 60s as necessary and "worth it", then I would imagine the sentiment is similar regarding any possible consequences today. My feeling is that if there actually are any reactions or consequences to Bill 96, they are going to be losses in future incremental growth, as opposed to dramatic changes to the existing status quo. Laurentian Bank is not going to pack up and move to Toronto. Bell is not going to close their Montreal Office. Air Canada may be more likely to choose Toronto for future expansion and hiring, but again, The Quebec economy is not going to immediately contract with thousands being forced to relocate or be out of work.

Montreal has been on a long-term trajectory towards a more balanced niche role. Likely fewer national or multi-national headquarters, but still a healthy employment base of regional offices that can be staffed primarily with french-speaking employees serving a more regional market. Bill 96 is not going to dramatically alter that trajectory.

While it has grown noticeably more materialistic since I have lived here, Quebec has always had more of a mindset that money isn't everything.

There is a very popular saying here which goes: je ne veux pas perdre ma vie à la gagner. Which essentially means: "I don't want to lose out on living because I am earning a living".

Also popular:

Le travail n'est pas une fin en soi (more or less: "work is a means, not an end")

L'argent est un bon serviteur, mais un mauvais maître (money is a good servant, but a terrible master)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

A lot of Torontonians post about it but I don't think they are upset about it..

As I said, perhaps my choice of words was not the best but there are definitely lots of sneers directed at Montreal when this topic comes up, in that it gave up with it "could" have been and settled for second-best because it gave in to its darker impulses.

Now that I think of it there is almost a classically Protestant tone to those reproaches.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Perhaps my choice of descriptor was not the right one, but there are plenty of people on this very thread who are saying this type of stuff that points to Montreal squandering something that it had on a silver platter. I guess we could debate (or ask them) whether they think that was not the best outcome for the country overall, or if the impact was just on Montreal.

I mean... I coulda been a contenda...?

EDIT: Perhaps the butthurt patriotic Canadians who are upset at being snubbed are mostly upset at Quebec, with which Montreal is often conflated. And vice versa.

I suppose I'm the "butthurt" anglo you're referring to.

My connection to Quebec has been intermittent.

- a 10 year old boy who went to Expo 67, visiting the big city for the first time, and being wowed by the tall buildings, the subway and the pavilions at the fair. Montreal felt like a wondrous place.

- the two referendums, both of which were almost existential crises for me, affecting my sense of nationhood and potentially destroying the promise of Canada. The referenda probably affected Maritimers more than most Canadians because we would have been cut off from the rest of the country if Quebec seperated.

- visiting my sister and brother-in-law a number of times while they lived in Quebec. As I have mentioned previously, he was a United Church minister, and he had four separate charges in various rural Quebec towns, ministering to rapidly aging and depleting anglophone congregations. It was very sad seeing whole anglophone communities disappearing before their eyes, and yet these aging anglophone farmers and merchant were considered oppressors by the official Quebec state. This seemed highly unfair to me.

It's hard not to feel a little resentful. The promise of Expo 67 is gone, and only depleting anglophone communities remain. If this makes me butthurt, then so be it........

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

n that it gave up with it "could" have been and settled for second-best because it gave in to its darker impulses.

Now that I think of it there is almost a classically Protestant tone to those reproaches.

It's complicated. Anglo-Canadians who know Montreal well know that the built form, the geography and even some version of the bicultural circumstance could, in some parallel universe, have given us a greater (by conventional metrics) first city than we presently have.

It is a mistake to ignore the many factors working in Toronto's favour and a still more serious error to overlook the destiny and wishes of the Quebecois people. We also know that.

But that island, with those bridges, with those houses, and all the might our greatest companies and banks could bring.

We think about it sometimes. Call it the Boreal Buenos Aires fantasy.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It's complicated. Anglo-Canadians who know Montreal well know that the built form, the geography and even some version of the bicultural circumstance could, in some parallel universe, have given us a greater (by conventional metrics) first city than we presently have.

It is a mistake to ignore the many factors working in Toronto's favour and a still more serious error to overlook the destiny and wishes of the Quebecois people. We also know that.

But that island, with those bridges, with those houses, and all the might our greatest companies and banks could bring.

We think about it sometimes. Call it the Boreal Buenos Aires fantasy.

This should be on a bronze plaque somewhere.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Sure, I understand this. French is one of those languages, even if nowadays it has fewer native speakers than, say, German, which is no longer one despite the German speaking peoples’ enormous clout.

But that’s why I think Montreal is probably in its optimal state, even if nobody is completely satisfied. I think it will always exist in language purgatory where English is kept at a simmer with always one eye on the pot - discouraged officially, but embraced to some extent off the books.

New Orleans is the threat of you go too far one way; being a sort of irrelevant place that’s a bit too big for its own country - a Montevideo, of sorts - would be the other.

My sense is that Montreal's prospects as a global city are still pretty robust, either as Canada's second city or the metropolis of an independent Quebec that would have just under 10 million people.

I am not always fond of global city lists but if I look at how GAWC ranks them, aside from Dubai and Singapore which are outliers due to their specific situations, you still have places like Dublin, Vienna, Zurich, Brussels, Prague, etc. punching quite high in spite of being located in fairly small countries.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I suppose I'm the "butthurt" anglo you're referring to.

My connection to Quebec has been intermittent.

- a 10 year old boy who went to Expo 67, visiting the big city for the first time, and being wowed by the tall buildings, the subway and the pavilions at the fair. Montreal felt like a wondrous place.

- the two referendums, both of which were almost existential crises for me, affecting my sense of nationhood and potentially destroying the promise of Canada. The referenda probably affected Maritimers more than most Canadians because we would have been cut off from the rest of the country if Quebec seperated.

- visiting my sister and brother-in-law a number of times while they lived in Quebec. As I have mentioned previously, he was a United Church minister, and he had four separate charges in various rural Quebec towns, ministering to rapidly aging and depleting anglophone congregations. It was very sad seeing whole anglophone communities disappearing before their eyes, and yet these aging anglophone farmers and merchant were considered oppressors by the official Quebec state. This seemed highly unfair to me.

It's hard not to feel a little resentful. The promise of Expo 67 is gone, and only depleting anglophone communities remain. If this makes me butthurt, then so be it........

It wasn't you I had in mind specifically, but this is actually a pretty good summary of some of the sentiments.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As I said, perhaps my choice of words was not the best but there are definitely lots of sneers directed at Montreal when this topic comes up, in that it gave up with it "could" have been and settled for second-best because it gave in to its darker impulses.

Now that I think of it there is almost a classically Protestant tone to those reproaches.

Well of course.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

While it has grown noticeably more materialistic since I have lived here, Quebec has always had more of a mindset that money isn't everything.

There is a very popular saying here which goes: je ne veux pas perdre ma vie à la gagner. Which essentially means: "I don't want to lose out on living because I am earning a living".

Also popular:

Le travail n'est pas une fin en soi (more or less: "work is a means, not an end")

L'argent est un bon serviteur, mais un mauvais maître (money is a good servant, but a terrible master)

Also a Catholic tone to this