Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's a lot of geographical variety around Canada and a lot of that variety exists outside of Quebec's borders. The reality is that the stuff we have here is not the same as say Regina, whether we're talking local food, any kind of economic base tied to the land, or outdoor recreation. The culture and lifestyle is determined somewhat by all that stuff. Whether your town is based on the fisheries or farming can matter more to your culture than a lot of factors.

If you want to see how language itself fits in you can also look at Europe where there are a lot of small countries that each have their own language (often farther apart than English and French). I am not sure they are all so distinctive that they'd hit whatever bar Canada fails to hit. A lot of them occupy small-ish valleys or plains. There are a lot of countries out there that have their own language or culture but don't have a great civilization behind them (on par with France, Japan, Russia, China, etc.).

One of the places where I had one of my personal "epiphanies" about Canada, Quebec, Newfoundland, regionalism, nationalism, confederation, etc., and how all of it fits together (or not), was Denmark.

Where it seems like every single person speaks fluent English, anglophone pop music is ubiquitous, etc.

And yet...

[niwell]

As someone who grew up in Calgary and visited Toronto pretty regularly (at least 1-2x yearly) I did feel a distinct difference between the two. To someone with my very limited experience, and once I was old enough to notice such things I found Ontario seemed more, I dunno, sure in itself. More permanent. Hell, maybe because my family isn’t long removed from the UK but it felt more British. It’s not the same sort of cultural difference that a place like Quebec has but it’s there.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One of the places where I had one of my personal "epiphanies" about Canada, Quebec, Newfoundland, regionalism, nationalism, confederation, etc., and how all of it fits together (or not), was Denmark.

Where it seems like every single person speaks fluent English, anglophone pop music is ubiquitous, etc.

And yet...

Join the club!

My other big one is South Africa for very different reasons.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

International travel is actually mostly what formed my views on this. Prior to that, my views were a lot closer to yours.

Couldn't you also say then that we both ended up believing over time that the culture we lived in had more depth, which seems perfectly natural? In my case I moved around a bunch and I never really believed NS was "generic Anglo-outside-Newfoundland Canada" (which I think might be more of an SSPism than commonly held view) but I was less generous toward Ontario or BC. I think they are by and large culturally underrated at this point. I wouldn't comment on the Prairies, having only been there a few times, which makes me wonder about some of the pronouncements I see on here.

I only really hear people argue that English speaking parts of Canada are America lite, not that Quebec has no culture. The criticism of Quebec is usually that it shouldn't be allowed to use the methods it does to defend its culture (I don't agree with that criticism of language laws, but I don't think people should value not being able to speak English per se). You used to hear people argue that Quebec culture is not "real" (lower class, not real French), but I think that view is in decline.

I think the idea that Newfoundland is really distinctive while say Cape Breton is basically Ontario is, uhh, non-standard, and may not reflect a dispassionate survey of facts on the ground.

[kool maudit]

I know an American girl from White Plains, NY, who moved to Toronto for work and couldn't wait to open an account at "Royal Bank" because it sounded so exotic to her. The city had a VERY British/Commonwealth appearance and feel to her, which was interesting to see. It wasn't Queens.

Speaking very personally, though, I find that after 10 years abroad and 15 years in Montreal, the category that I relate to the most is Winston Churchill's formulation from "The history of the English-speaking peoples". Maybe it's my English dad, or having lived in London, or maybe it's just Montreal. But in my heart of hearts, I'm an... Anglo before anything else. Kiwis, Americans, Aussies are all very legible, are all 'home', even though their particularities might be interesting and unknown to me, in some cases. But if I'm part of a history and of course I am, it is "The history of the English-speaking peoples".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

The way they are prepared in Quebec, quite probably. I'm going to assume that those items as prepared in Longeuil don't resemble their counterparts from their originating nations terribly closely. In much the same way that I've been surprised by North American dishes served overseas... you'd be surprised what a garden salad can look like in third tier Chinese cities.

For better or for worse, I don't think anyone here would consider pad thai or lasagna to be Quebec cuisine.

And yes, I am aware that in a place like Toronto, people's definition of "Toronto cuisine" or "Canadian cuisine" is basically "anything that is made here and that people here eat".

That's one very big ROC-Quebec difference right there, and doesn't necessarily apply just to cuisine.

But I don't think that there is hard and fast rule that something that has origins elsewhere can't be considered "Canadian" eventually. For example, the "donair" has been established for long enough and is different enough from the original "doner kebab" in the Mediterranean for it to be considered Maritime or Canadian cuisine.

There are probably a few other examples out there. But they are more the exception than the rule.

[kool maudit]

I think Toronto is on the currywurst curve for a lot of dishes, actually. They'll be "Toronto" through and through one day.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I know an American girl from White Plains, NY, who moved to Toronto for work and couldn't wait to open an account at "Royal Bank" because it sounded so exotic to her. The city had a VERY British/Commonwealth appearance and feel to her, which was interesting to see. It wasn't Queens.
".

LOL @ Queens in this context.

I mean, I get it. But it's still funny.

[niwell]

I’m generally not a fan of “X is Toronto food because we get great versions of it”, but there are a few things that have probably come into their own. Jamaican Patties at subway stations and convenience stores may be one. West Indian Roti wraps with an East Indian filling seems to be something developed here that’s become fairly ubiquitous. Apparently a few places in Queens do them and there’s a similar dish from Durban but other than that it seems to be a Toronto thing.

I consider those to be more Toronto specific than being able to get authentic regional Chinese food, even though I really appreciate that does exist.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I think Toronto is on the currywurst curve for a lot of dishes, actually. They'll be "Toronto" through and through one day.

The view of culture as something that flows out of economic dynamism is underrated, and the idea that we're on a neoliberalism-fueled march of progress that will wipe out all local culture and can only be temporarily optionally resisted is overrated.

In the real world it's hard to get Nexus cards right now because the US insists that the border guards have to carry guns in Canadian offices, and the border was almost completely closed for a while. You couldn't even travel from America to America Jr.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

For better or for worse, I don't think anyone here would consider pad thai or lasagna to be Quebec cuisine.

My kids love pizza and spaghetti. Would you consider them to be big ethnic food enthusiasts, or is that just what people eat here?

People overthink this stuff. "Canada doesn't have any cuisine". Sure we do, it is literally what people eat. What they make at home and what they order in restaurants. We may not have invented these dishes, but it is still our cuisine just the same.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Speaking very personally, though, I find that after 10 years abroad and 15 years in Montreal, the category that I relate to the most is Winston Churchill's formulation from "The history of the English-speaking peoples". Maybe it's my English dad, or having lived in London, or maybe it's just Montreal. But in my heart of hearts, I'm an... Anglo before anything else. Kiwis, Americans, Aussies are all very legible, are all 'home', even though their particularities might be interesting and unknown to me, in some cases. But if I'm part of a history and of course I am, it is "The history of the English-speaking peoples".

Wish I had more time, this is such a great thread. I have to jump in here: I definitely felt this way while I lived in Taiwain due to the expat crowd I lived, worked and travelled with.

But it has receded somewhat now that I've been back in Canada for 20+ years. The multinational friendships remain, and we relate on a level that supersedes nationality due to our shared history, and yet, the little differencies pop out in sharp relief.

"I got a great deal on health insurance this year..."

[someone123]

I think for the Denmark example the most interesting question isn't whether they can speak English and still not be the same as the US, it's how different they are from their neighbours, Germany or Sweden, what sort of distinctiveness we expect there, and how legible we expect it to be to outsiders (we write Snargleblårgle and they write Snargleblørge).

The fact that Danes can speak English well and remain culturally distinct is a counterexample against language fully determining culture. For a lot of people the view of whether or not Canada is distinctive more or less starts and ends with language. I think if Canada had a coast-to-coast Australia-level distinctive accent that would have a huge impact on the debate despite being kind of trivial.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think the idea that Newfoundland is really distinctive while say Cape Breton is basically Ontario is, uhh, non-standard, and may not reflect a dispassionate survey of facts on the ground.

I think that's probably because compared to an entire province (or island) like Newfoundland with an outsized personality, Cape Breton comes across as a bit of an easy-to-forget asterisk that is part of a larger identifiable whole.

Just like when people have an idea of Ontario in their mind, it's not places like Hawkesbury and Hearst that they are thinking of.

[kool maudit]

There is famous, though, and there is distinct. One can have a lot of the latter with virtually none of the former.

Cape Breton, Yorkshire, Puglia...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Couldn't you also say then that we both ended up believing over time that the culture we lived in had more depth, which seems perfectly natural? In my case I moved around a bunch and I never really believed NS was "generic Anglo-outside-Newfoundland Canada" (which I think might be more of an SSPism than commonly held view) but I was less generous toward Ontario or BC. I think they are by and large culturally underrated at this point. I wouldn't comment on the Prairies, having only been there a few times, which makes me wonder about some of the pronouncements I see on here.
.

I had never lived in Quebec when I started travelling internationally a lot in my very early 20s, and was only nominally francophone at the time. I mean, I could speak French reasonably well but I knew very little of francophone culture outside of snippets I'd been exposed to via occasional mingling with extended family members who were actually living it.

Culturally, I was for all intents and purposes an Anglo-Canadian, way more in tune with The Tragically Hip than Les Colocs. Actually, I didn't even know who Les Colocs were at the time. It was even people in France who first introduced me to a lot of Quebec music.

Travelling internationally is what initially provoked me into taking an interest in Canadian francophone culture (particularly Quebec's of course), and played a big role in my eventual move to Quebec.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Speaking very personally, though, I find that after 10 years abroad and 15 years in Montreal, the category that I relate to the most is Winston Churchill's formulation from "The history of the English-speaking peoples". Maybe it's my English dad, or having lived in London, or maybe it's just Montreal. But in my heart of hearts, I'm an... Anglo before anything else. Kiwis, Americans, Aussies are all very legible, are all 'home', even though their particularities might be interesting and unknown to me, in some cases. But if I'm part of a history and of course I am, it is "The history of the English-speaking peoples".

Trying to do the same exercise myself, as a Québécois who also happens to be familiar with English, I find it's a tiered system:

1) Home - Quebec

2a) Not home, but also not that foreign - Arkansas, Vancouver

2b) Not home, but also not that foreign (but in different ways) - Paris, Lyon

3) Fully foreign places - Poland, Japan, Uganda

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

There is famous, though, and there is distinct. One can have a lot of the latter with virtually none of the former.

As one example I'm not sure Acadians are less distinct or have less history or culture than Newfoundland does. As a demographic they're about the same size but I don't think they're very well known nationally.

(So is the "Celtic" Maritime demographic which has a very similar history to Newfoundland; where people came from, timeline, and so on.)

I don't think it's true that the Maritimes are closer to Ontario than they are to Newfoundland culturally. And you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make an argument where the English/French divide is central and there's a carve-out for Newfoundland but the Francophones in the Maritimes do not count.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

LOL @ Queens in this context.

I mean, I get it. But it's still funny.

I had the same thought, I wouldn't have resisted replying "you're from Queens County and you think Royal Bank sounds exotic?!?!?!?"

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

As one example I'm not sure Acadians are less distinct or have less history or culture than Newfoundland does. As a demographic they're about the same size.

(So is the "Celtic" Maritime demographic or the Foreign Protestants et al.)

I don't think it's true that the Maritimes are closer to Ontario than they are to Newfoundland culturally. And you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make an argument where the English/French divide is central and there's a carve-out for Newfoundland but the Francophones in the Maritimes do not count.

I don't think anyone would claim that Acadiens aren't distinct. Though they are very roughly half as numerous as Newfoundlanders.

It's that darned asterisk again.

When Québécois talk dismissively about the ROC, it's not Acadiens that they have in mind.

(Though strangely enough they do often forget about Franco-Ontariens, and can even be dismissive when reminded of their existence.)