Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

In France, the word for "parking" is...drum roll...."Parking"!

Actually... not exactly.

It's one of these many cases where the French use English words in a different way than the English speakers.

A parking space is not the same thing as a parking lot. The French use the word "parking" to mean a 'parking lot' only. A parking space is not called "un parking". It's called either "une place de parking", or more formally (and as used by the administration and driving code) "une place de stationnement" (but in colloquial use people will just say "une place", as in "j'ai trouvé une place pour me garer", "il n'y a plus de places en ville, c'est terrible", "va me garder la place, je fais le tour" (a task often assigned to kids). And of course the act of "parking" is not called "parking" in France, it's called "se garer" (as in "avec les écolos, y a de moins en moins de places pour se garer en ville, ils interdisent la ville aux gens de banlieue !").

Can't guarantee it will be the exact same colloquial use in Québec.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Oh look. Another Quebecker putting down the Maritimes (bolded in case anybody is confused). How quaint.

Better add that to the list of passtimes...

Not a put down. Surprise factoid! - I have degrees from both McGill and Dalhousie. I have good things to say about them both.

It wasn't uncommon to hear either joke - McGill the Harvard of Canada or Dalhousie the McGill of the Maritimes, but I vote with my feet and chose them both.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Absolutely not. I know it exists. Quite a few of my relatives live in places like this. Though they're often shrinking or on their way out.

I assume you are referring to the dying Gaspe anglophone communities.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

I assume you are referring to the dying Gaspe anglophone communities.

To the Quebecois, they don't count.

They refuse to believe that in some parts of their province, the original settlers were in fact anglophone. They consider this a historical impossibility.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

To the Quebecois, they don't count.

They refuse to believe that in some parts of their province, the original settlers were in fact anglophone. They consider this a historical impossibility.

Well, apart from indigenous people of course, the original settlers of most of the central part of North America were French. I guess they don't count either. Or rather, once the deed of assimilating them is done, protecting minorities (at least English speaking ones) is suddenly important...

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Well, apart from indigenous people of course, the original settlers of most of the central part of North America were French.

Well, to be honest, the French didn't actually "settle" the Ohio country, or the Mississippi River valley. They controlled this territory, and set up a series of forts and trading posts, but, the only land they really settled (before the conquest) was the St. Lawrence River valley, extreme southwestern Ontario and Acadia.

After the conquest, French settlement spread to northern Ontario and to pockets of the west, especially around Winnipeg.

Meanwhile, anglophone settlers set up shop in virgin lands in the townships, along the southern Gaspe coast, in the upper Ottawa River valley and in the far eastern portions of the north coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Borders can be messy.

[MolsonExport]

By the mid-1700s the French settlers were well established with a population around 70,000, mainly due to natural increase. The European population had grown slowly under French rule.The British Thirteen Colonies to the south along the Atlantic coast grew in population from natural increase and more new settlers from Europe. By 1760, almost 1.6 million people lived in the British colonies, a ratio of approximately twenty-three to one compared to New France. The population of the New England colonies alone in 1760 was nearly 450,000.

Now for where my ancestors hail from, the Eastern Townships. Before European colonization the area was inhabited by the Abenaki. Settlement by Europeans happened in three waves: first from New England, including some loyalists, then from the British Isles, and finally French-Canadians from surrounding areas.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

By the mid-1700s the French settlers were well established with a population around 70,000, mainly due to natural increase. The European population had grown slowly under French rule.The British Thirteen Colonies to the south along the Atlantic coast grew in population from natural increase and more new settlers from Europe. By 1760, almost 1.6 million people lived in the British colonies, a ratio of approximately twenty-three to one compared to New France. The population of the New England colonies alone in 1760 was nearly 450,000.

This is not surprising considering that during the 1600-1760 period, between 200,000 and 300,000 inhabitants of the British Isles (and even a bit further) migrated permanently to the 13 British colonies, whereas only 5,000 people from France migrated permanently to North America (of whom almost all the people with French ancestry in today's North America descend, except for the few French Huguenots in the British colonies and the recent French arrivals).

It will forever remain a mystery why a country of 25 million people could only send 5,000 settlers, whereas Great Britain with just 5 million people could send more than 200,000. Canada and Louisiana didn't have a good reputation in France, plus standards of living in France were high for the time, weather was better than in the British Isles, soil more fertile. Also, I've read recently a fascinating description of France by a British geographer written around 1720, and what's striking in what he tells about France (a book that covers not just geography, but also human geography, agriculture, French politics, etc) is how very nationalist and proud of their country the French were back then. They were convinced France was the superior country of Europe, and it had the best government, the best climate, the most envious land, etc. This comes again and again page after page. He says that even the Huguenot refugees in England couldn't criticize France or the French king, and kept saying that France was best, best dresses, best food, best government (which he found utterly bizarre for people victim of that government), etc.

In a nutshell, France back then was a bit like the US today, the superpower where people were convinced they lived in the best country on Earth, so no wonder people were not inclined to leave.

The French government also had remarkable lack of insight. In the 1660s the governor of New France asked Colbert to send more settlers, but the king and Colbert were convinced France was experiencing demographic decline (which was a commonly held belief back then, but factually untrue), so ruling over a country already "losing inhabitants", they didn't want to lose more inhabitants by having them leave to North America. Bizarre, but true.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Zeej

Not a put down. Surprise factoid! - I have degrees from both McGill and Dalhousie. I have good things to say about them both.

It wasn't uncommon to hear either joke - McGill the Harvard of Canada or Dalhousie the McGill of the Maritimes, but I vote with my feet and chose them both.

Well there now... so I suppose Dalhousie is the Harvard of Nova Scotia then?

BTW, when I went there I never heard that, but perhaps it came later. Maybe drawn from the Simpson's cartoon previously linked?

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

To the Quebecois, they don't count.

They refuse to believe that in some parts of their province, the original settlers were in fact anglophone. They consider this a historical impossibility.

And let's not forget some of the original non-Indigenous settlers to what is now the Quebec North Shore were from Newfoundland.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One can say that authorities generally only put up bilingual signs in the minority language only when all risk of that language taking over as the main one has been extinguished.

"Now that we've effectively killed language X, we can put up signs in that language without concern."

I can imagine the outrage if NB, ON, PE, and MB removed their bilingual signage and reverted back to English only signage. There would be howls of outrage from Quebec and elsewhere in the country. The MPs from Papineau and Beloeil—Chambly would be leading the charge. On the other hand, when Quebec removes what little bilingual signage there is, crickets.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

I can imagine the outrage if NB, ON, PE, and MB removed their bilingual signage and reverted back to English only signage. There would be howls of outrage from Quebec and elsewhere in the country. The MPs from Papineau and Beloeil—Chambly would be leading the charge. On the other hand, when Quebec removes what little bilingual signage there is, crickets.

Quebec has had very little bilingual road signage on its highways for the past 40 years. Not much to remove. Though some municipalities have replaced ARRÊT signs with STOP signs in recent years, after obtaining confirmation that STOP is indeed in the French dictionary.

As for bilingual signs in the ROC, I think francophones would prefer more education, healthcare, daycare, social services, etc. in their own language over a few token words on highway signs. Aside from francophone towns that had been given anglicized names on signs (ie Petit-Ruisseau changed to Little Brook by the province) I've never heard a francophone outside Quebec say that bilingual signage was important.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, to be honest, the French didn't actually "settle" the Ohio country, or the Mississippi River valley. They controlled this territory, and set up a series of forts and trading posts, but, the only land they really settled (before the conquest) was the St. Lawrence River valley, extreme southwestern Ontario and Acadia.

After the conquest, French settlement spread to northern Ontario and to pockets of the west, especially around Winnipeg.
.

There was more French settlement in the middle of the US than you account for.

Here is a map of the city of St Louis, Missouri, drawn up by the French.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/d1yhap/french_map_of_st_louis_before_the_louisiana/

There was pockets of French settlement all throughout the region, including the Bourbonnais-Kankakee region in present-day Illinois or the Ste-Geneviève region to the south of St Louis going towards the Tennessee border.

And of course there were settlements in Louisiana in the Bayou country and the New Orleans area, and even in neighbouring states like Mississippi along the gulf coast.

There are lots of French surnames in coastal Mississippi, and even into east Texas.

[MonctonRad]

But, as Molson pointed out, at most, there were 70,000 French settlers in North America, about 50,000 of which were in the St. Lawrence valley. Another 10,000 were in Acadia. This leaves only 10,000 for the rest of North America, and I wager that the vast majority of these were in Louisiana. This leaves only a thousand or so for the entirety of the Ohio and Mississippi valleys. I wager that most of these were trappers and traders, with only a few scattered farming settlements.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Quebec has had very little bilingual road signage on its highways for the past 40 years. Not much to remove. Though some municipalities have replaced ARRÊT signs with STOP signs in recent years, after obtaining confirmation that STOP is indeed in the French dictionary.

As for bilingual signs in the ROC, I think francophones would prefer more education, healthcare, daycare, social services, etc. in their own language over a few token words on highway signs. Aside from francophone towns that had been given anglicized names on signs (ie Petit-Ruisseau changed to Little Brook by the province) I've never heard a francophone outside Quebec say that bilingual signage was important.

Of course Quebec has had little bilingual highway signage for the past 40+ years since Bills 22 and 101 eliminated most bilingual signs. And don't forget Quebec francizied many Anglo community names. (ie: Hull and Aylmer now Gatineau; Wakefield now La Peche; etc.). Chat with the SANB and they will very clearly express their take on the removal of bilingual signage in New Brunswick. SANB has moved beyond promoting official bilingualism to now linguistic and institutional duality in NB.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Here is a map of the city of St Louis, Missouri, drawn up by the French.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/d1yhap/french_map_of_st_louis_before_the_louisiana/

What's crazy is the entire city on this map was razed to the ground in the end of the 1930s (except for the St Louis cathedral), including the house of the French founder of St Louis, all to be replaced with a park, with the approval of president Roosevelt (the same Roosevelt who also banned French-language schools in Louisiana in the 1930s). A combination of urban vandalism and culture "cancellation" (long before the term became popular).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But, as Molson pointed out, at most, there were 70,000 French settlers in North America, about 50,000 of which were in the St. Lawrence valley. Another 10,000 were in Acadia. This leaves only 10,000 for the rest of North America, and I wager that the vast majority of these were in Louisiana. This leaves only a thousand or so for the entirety of the Ohio and Mississippi valleys. I wager that most of these were trappers and traders, with only a few scattered farming settlements.

The population of New France in 1760 is more usually estimated at 80,000 rather than 70,000. But the important thing to keep in mind is that the French settlements in the Midwest that Acajack is alluding to CONTINUED to develop after 1760, and in fact essentially developed after 1760, first under Spanish rule in the Spanish Louisiana (which was essentially managed by French local authorities, despite formal transfer to Spain in 1763), and then more strangely in the first decades of US rule over these territories after the Louisiana Purchase. For example St. Louis remained majority French in the first decades of the 19th century, and the French language remained spoken in the city until the end of the 19th century (there even existed 2 French newspapers in the city, Le Patriote and La Revue de l'Ouest).



Cap-Girardeau, in Missouri, on the Mississippi River, was founded in the 1790s under Spanish rule, and was another striving French community in the 19th century in the Midwest.

And of course there was also Detroit, where the French settlers remained the majority population until the early decades of the 19th century.

As for the Ohio Valley, unlike the Midwest it was not settled by French settlers, because it was Indian territory, and the colonial authorities of French Canada wanted to keep good relationships with the Indians for trade reasons and also to keep them as allies against the British. The French Canadian authorities did set up several French forts in the region however, including at Pittsburgh which was the French fort called Fort Duquesne. The French forts in the Ohio valley and south of Lake Ontairio were established there for military reasons, and not in order to colonize the area. The French settlements took place further west (Detroit, St. Louis, Cap-Girardeau, etc), and essentially after 1760.

On a side note, my high school in Southern France was twinned with the high school of Cap-Girardeau, and our city also has a cultural partnership with the Osage tribe of Amerindians, so that history is not forgotten in France.

That's the Osage memorial that was built in my hometown when I was in high school. Some of our classmates also went on a trip to Cap-Girardeau, but I didn't.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Actually... not exactly.

It's one of these many cases where the French use English words in a different way than the English speakers.

A parking space is not the same thing as a parking lot. The French use the word "parking" to mean a 'parking lot' only. A parking space is not called "un parking". It's called either "une place de parking", or more formally (and as used by the administration and driving code) "une place de stationnement" (but in colloquial use people will just say "une place", as in "j'ai trouvé une place pour me garer", "il n'y a plus de places en ville, c'est terrible", "va me garder la place, je fais le tour" (a task often assigned to kids). And of course the act of "parking" is not called "parking" in France, it's called "se garer" (as in "avec les écolos, y a de moins en moins de places pour se garer en ville, ils interdisent la ville aux gens de banlieue !").

Can't guarantee it will be the exact same colloquial use in Québec.

In Quebec it’s very common to say “se parquer” for “se stationner”. Less syllables…

“Se garer”, sounds very French. Not really used here.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Of course Quebec has had little bilingual highway signage for the past 40+ years since Bills 22 and 101 eliminated most bilingual signs. And don't forget Quebec francizied many Anglo community names. (ie: Hull and Aylmer now Gatineau; Wakefield now La Peche; etc.). Chat with the SANB and they will very clearly express their take on the removal of bilingual signage in New Brunswick. SANB has moved beyond promoting official bilingualism to now linguistic and institutional duality in NB.

OK, ROC provinces keep symbols instead of having services for Francophones in their territories while Québec wants a French face while keeping first class services for its Anglophone minority. Which of the 2 communities is best serve then? In 20-30 years there might not be enough Francophones left in other provinces to protest to keep French signs while Anglophones will still be thriving in Québec.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

In Quebec it’s very common to say “se parquer” for “se stationner”. Less syllables…

“Se garer”, sounds very French. Not really used here.

I was in Latin America during the first part of the year and people were correcting me for saying "coche" (and not "carro") and "estacionar" (instead of "aparcar").