Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

“Problem” seems an odd way to describe it.

It's a 'problem' when these people supposedly buy groceries or ride the bus and offend people by not immediately reciting traditional Quebecois culture when confronted with 'Bonjour'. It makes every one else uncomfortable.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

Thank the mods for finally creating this thread. What took so long? Maybe the rest of us can finally peruse the other threads at our leisure without having to read through page after page of some obtuse take from Anglo-Quebecois-growing-up-in-Franco-Ontario point of view. Or whatever.

Hear hear.

To me, ethnicity - and who's in and who's out - is kind of a "angels dancing on the head of a pin" kind of thing that I grow tiresome over.

I know this sounds trite, but the worst that can happen if we let people identify with a place or culture on their own volition is that we get a city like Toronto that doesn't have a dish or an accent or, maybe, at worst, we all live in an International Airport.

The worst that can happen if people that used to beat each other over the head over class differences decides to form an in-group called an ethnicity and decide who gets in or out is, well, genocide, ethnic cleansing, a sclerotic ossification of culture, etc*.

*PS: I'm not saying that's happening in contemporary Quebec.

But if we are playing the "Quebecois are an ethnic group" game, then it's not one of the world's most defined or ancient ethnic cultures. It's not like Quebecois can read something written by their ancestors with the same types of last names from 2,200 years ago with minimal difficulty the way that Han Chinese can read a poem in small seal script from the Qin dynasty.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Hear hear.

To me, ethnicity - and who's in and who's out - is kind of a "angels dancing on the head of a pin" kind of thing that I grow tiresome over.

I know this sounds trite, but the worst that can happen if we let people identify with a place or culture on their own volition is that we get a city like Toronto that doesn't have a dish or an accent or, maybe, at worst, we all live in an International Airport.

The worst that can happen if people that used to beat each other over the head over class differences decides to form an in-group called an ethnicity and decide who gets in or out is, well, genocide, ethnic cleansing, a sclerotic ossification of culture, etc*.

*PS: I'm not saying that's happening in contemporary Quebec.

But if we are playing the "Quebecois are an ethnic group" game, then it's not one of the world's most defined or ancient ethnic cultures. It's not like Quebecois can read something written by their ancestors with the same types of last names from 2,200 years ago with minimal difficulty the way that Han Chinese can read a poem in small seal script from the Qin dynasty.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. It's a new world culture and everyone recognizes that. Similar to "Mexican", "Jamaican", "Australian", "Brazilian", "Argentinian", etc.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by esquire

Of course it's clear. It's just interesting to see how one provincial identity is constructed to emphasize residency and the other to emphasize language and bloodlines.

I would suspect that English Canada had a similar more exclusion-oriented approach at one time... someone not descended from the British Isles or at the very least Western Europe might have been regarded as an "other", in the days before large scale immigration from outside those areas. The idea that you could be someone from Chandigarh and speak Punjabi most of the time but still be Manitoban (or Nova Scotian or whatever) has to be fairly new, like post-PET.

I am not sure it is a deliberate construction. It is probably more of a historical accident and fuzzy association that works because it's right most of the time, especially when French speakers are talking to each other. In most of the world you'll find this association and 1 term that has a bunch of meanings about place of residence and origin. The modern concept espoused by say the federal Liberals that there's no difference between Canadians so long as they live here (or are citizens or have PR, or want to live here; I am not sure what the rule is) is the new and somewhat contrived standard. To be clear I think openness and cosmopolitanism is the better course, but it's not necessarily the natural state of most cultures and regions.

I've been gone a while but FWIW I don't really think of "Nova Scotian" as a term meaning "person who moved to NS" that has zero implications as far as the culture of the person goes. To me it means from/of NS. Maritimer is similar, with perhaps a stronger connotation of attachment to the region.

In the Maritimes in the modern era you are not likely to stick out as an outsider due to your appearance but you may due to mannerisms or accent and generally going "against the grain" in a bunch of ways. I don't think this norm is so bad. It pressures people to get along and follow collective goals, something that seems important again during the era of covid. And it is based around intent and participation rather than immutable characteristics.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It's a 'problem' when these people supposedly buy groceries or ride the bus and offend people by not immediately reciting traditional Quebecois culture when confronted with 'Bonjour'. It makes every one else uncomfortable.

Let's remember that this all started by people asking why or criticizing that such an individual might not be universally and intuitively attributed the French term "Québécois" as an in-group they are part of.

Bothersome or not, it doesn't really seem that hard to understand.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Bothersome or not, it doesn't really seem that hard to understand.

It's not difficult to understand at all.

• Speak French (but Quebecois French only); and,
• Be born in Quebec, and;
• Have a Quebecois family name, and;
• Look Quebecois (be white); or, play hockey.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It's not difficult to understand at all.

• Speak French (but Quebecois French only); and,
• Be born in Quebec, and;
• Have a Quebecois family name, and;
• Look Quebecois (be white); or, play hockey.

Even simpler:

Path A: speak French with a Québécois accent, regardless of what you look like or where you were born

Path B: speak reasonably decent French regardless of accent, but still appear visibly ensconced in Quebec society at least to some degree (culturally, friendships, interests, etc.), regardless of what you look like or where you were born.

[jamincan]

I think part of the rub is that in urban Ontario, at least, the whole multicultural society thing is something that a lot of us took to heart, and is for us, in a way, one of the defining qualities of Canada. It would seem that this isn't true across the rest of the country. Certainly not Acajack's Quebec, and from my experiences there, not really Newfoundland. I imagine the Maritimes are similar.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

Of course it's clear. It's just interesting to see how one provincial identity is constructed to emphasize residency and the other to emphasize language and bloodlines.

I would suspect that English Canada had a similar more exclusion-oriented approach at one time... someone not descended from the British Isles or at the very least Western Europe might have been regarded as an "other", in the days before large scale immigration from outside those areas. The idea that you could be someone from Chandigarh and speak Punjabi most of the time but still be Manitoban (or Nova Scotian or whatever) has to be fairly new, like post-PET.

This is a good observation. I'd say Anglo-Canada is further along that path than most anywhere in the world. Though anywhere that has a decent amount of immigration is moving in this direction, even Quebec of course. I and others on here have mentioned before that if Anglo-Canada is a 10 on this front, Quebec is still an 8 or maybe even a 9.

And even so, in GTA and Greater Vancouver schools, which are the most diverse in the country and maybe the world, today kids still fairly generally refer to white kids as "Canadian" and generally refer to the non-white kids by their parents' origin: Jamaican, Sikh, Chinese, Somalian, etc.

Now, if you challenge those kids and ask them if Imran is Canadian, almost all of them will immediately answer "well of course he is, that's not what we mean when we say he is Pakistani..."

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I know this sounds trite, but the worst that can happen if we let people identify with a place or culture on their own volition is that we get a city like Toronto that doesn't have a dish or an accent or, maybe, at worst, we all live in an International Airport.

I think I know what you are getting at but I worry this is a little superficial as an analysis of what's going on. The international airport is associated with sterile retail and boring waiting areas and seems like purgatory when you're there for 4 hours but it would be a dystopian hell to live in. Nation states, citizenship, and the sense of responsibility of the state toward specific groups of people still matter. Canada cannot look out for the whole world. We need to have a strong sense of differentiation between Canadians and non-Canadians. I am not sure there's much agreement anymore on where that line is, and a lot of Canadians have really odd and unworkable beliefs about it now. They have no sense of shared identity with their compatriots and feel like citizens of the world, but there is no world government to help when the local factory shuts down and all of the jobs disappear. Worse still many other nation states are still strong actors and so if you're in a weak nation state you could be worse off than if all of them were weak actors.

Collective goals and frameworks for thinking about the world and trust also all have a huge impact on what societies can tackle.

The US is suffering from related issues a lot more than we are. Little sense of shared norms and sympathy between cultural groups that share a country, and a lot of elites don't believe that it matters if you were born in West Virginia or Guatemala when it comes to who looks out for you.

On an abstract level maybe we can say that culture and sense of place should be completely disconnected from legal entitlements but I doubt that is workable politically, particularly when it's open to emotional attacks from outside.

In summary my overall impression is: (1) culture and character actually can matter a lot to quality of life even though they're often intangible/aesthetic and so get ignored in the optimization game and, (2) we cannot afford to ignore culture at our current level of development and realpolitik constraints.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I think part of the rub is that in urban Ontario, at least, the whole multicultural society thing is something that a lot of us took to heart, and is for us, in a way, one of the defining qualities of Canada. It would seem that this isn't true across the rest of the country. Certainly not Acajack's Quebec, and from my experiences there, not really Newfoundland. I imagine the Maritimes are similar.

Sorry, but it's not Acajack's Quebec. It's not some construction of mine that I dreamt up.

When you're mystified or outraged by Bill 21 or Legault's support of Macron or anything thing coming out of Quebec that makes you shake your head... think of my posts on here.

You might not agree but if you add up the dots between political goings-on in Quebec and my posts, a lot of stuff lines up. There are some answers there.

Another thing about Canadian multiculturalism and Quebec is that it's still widely seen as a ploy to reduce francophones to the status of an ethnic group (like all the others - comme les autres) with Anglo-Canada ruling over everyone.

Rightly or wrongly again. But one thing is sure: I am not making this up.

[jamincan]

Ok, Acajack. Quebec as you describe it is the authoritative version. Let me fix my post.

I think part of the rub is that in urban Ontario, at least, the whole multicultural society thing is something that a lot of us took to heart, and is for us, in a way, one of the defining qualities of Canada. It would seem that this isn't true across the rest of the country. Certainly not Quebec, and from my experiences there, not really Newfoundland. I imagine the Maritimes are similar.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It's a 'problem' when these people supposedly buy groceries or ride the bus and offend people by not immediately reciting traditional Quebecois culture when confronted with 'Bonjour'. It makes every one else uncomfortable.

Ahhh, Second World problem...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Ok, Acajack. Quebec as you describe it is the authoritative version. Let me fix my post.
.

If imagining that Québécois are basically the same as Golden Horseshoe Ontarians in terms of world view (especially on matters of identity) provides you with solace, then more power to you.

I really don't know how you'd explain Bill 21, Bill 101, the CAQ, the PQ, still not wanting to sign the Constitution, or even the Orange Wave under Jack Layton, but hey... knock yourself out.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If imagining that Québécois are basically the same as Golden Horseshoe Ontarians in terms of world view (especially on matters of identity) provides you with solace, then more power to you.

I really don't know how you'd explain Bill 21, Bill 101, the CAQ, the PQ, still not wanting to sign the Constitution, or even the Orange Wave under Jack Layton, but hey... knock yourself out.

Did you read my post?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think I know what you are getting at but I worry this is a little superficial as an analysis of what's going on. The international airport is associated with sterile retail and boring waiting areas and seems like purgatory when you're there for 4 hours but it would be a dystopian hell to live in. Nation states, citizenship, and the sense of responsibility of the state toward specific groups of people still matter. Canada cannot look out for the whole world. We need to have a strong sense of differentiation between Canadians and non-Canadians. I am not sure there's much agreement anymore on where that line is, and a lot of Canadians have really odd and unworkable beliefs about it now. They have no sense of shared identity with their compatriots and feel like citizens of the world, but there is no world government to help when the local factory shuts down and all of the jobs disappear. Worse still many other nation states are still strong actors and so if you're in a weak nation state you could be worse off than if all of them were weak actors.

Collective goals and frameworks for thinking about the world and trust also all have a huge impact on what societies can tackle.

The US is suffering from related issues a lot more than we are. Little sense of shared norms and sympathy between cultural groups that share a country, and a lot of elites don't believe that it matters if you were born in West Virginia or Guatemala when it comes to who looks out for you.

On an abstract level maybe we can say that culture and sense of place should be completely disconnected from legal entitlements but I doubt that is workable politically, particularly when it's open to emotional attacks from outside.

In summary my overall impression is: (1) culture and character actually can matter a lot to quality of life even though they're often intangible/aesthetic and so get ignored in the optimization game and, (2) we cannot afford to ignore culture at our current level of development and realpolitik constraints.

This is a great post. I'd rep you if we could do that on here.

The highlighted portion is something I've been suspecting for a long time.

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm anglo, I live in Quebec (although I wasn't born here) and I have to agree with pretty much everything Acajack says.

When we talk in English about someone being "Québécois," it's pretty obvious we are referring to a specific ethnocultural group. But in French it has a dual meaning: it's both the general description for anyone who has made Quebec their permanent home, as well as a more exclusive ethnic descriptor for people of French-Canadian heritage from Quebec. It's worth noting that a francophone from the Îles-de-la-Madeleine is Québécois in the first sense but not the second, since they are ethnically/culturally Acadian.

On a day to day basis this stuff almost never comes up. Maybe it's a bigger issue in more homogenous parts of the province, but in Montreal, everybody speaks French with a different accent based on their own personal background. Nobody is going around deciding who is Québécois or not.

I'd like to share some examples of identity and language based on my real-life friends:

- Parents are Vietnamese, grew up speaking Vietnamese at home, but her main everyday language is a very joualisant French. She also speaks English with a distinct Montreal accent, kind of like an Italian from St-Léonard.

- "Québécois de souche" guy who would vote "yes" in a referendum but feels alienated from Quebec's political and cultural mainstream. Has no affinity for Canada but has no real animosity towards anglos and no desire to exclude them from anything. Hates the culture of bro-ey pickup-driving Kevins that seems to be taking over Quebec. (This could probably describe every Québec solidaire voter.)

- Mom is from France, dad is an old-stock Montreal anglo. Her English has a slight French accent, her French has some noticeable French-from-France intonation.

- Two guys from Quebec City, each with a francophone mother and anglophone father. One went to an English school, the other went to a French school. Both identify as anglophones and yet their French is completely unaccented and they pass as francophones, to the point where most of their francophone friends are probably unaware that they are anglo.

- Two siblings with anglo parents. Grew up in an almost entirely francophone suburb of Montreal, went to school in French. Afterwards, one went to French cégep/university, the other studied in English. The first one married a francophone, speaks English with a slight French accent. The other married an anglo from out of province, works in a very English part of Montreal, says her French isn't as good as it used to be – but is considered a francophone by her unilingual anglo coworkers.

- All the francophone teenagers in my neighbourhood speak with an accent that didn't exist 25 years ago. It sounds kind of transatlantic, because many of them have parents who immigrated from France, the Caribbean, North Africa and West Africa, and they use slang words like "giu" that come from Haitian creole. But this isn't limited to kids with immigrant parents. A lot of the kids with "Québécois" parents speak like this too.

Are all of these people Québécois? Some would say yes, some no. Most would say who cares. The point of all these examples is to show that language and culture in Quebec is complicated, especially in Montreal. It's not the simple insider/outsider equation that some of the people in this thread are making it out to be. Identity and language in this province, or at least this city, is the product of lines that are constantly shifting.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I think part of the rub is that in urban Ontario, at least, the whole multicultural society thing is something that a lot of us took to heart, and is for us, in a way, one of the defining qualities of Canada. It would seem that this isn't true across the rest of the country. Certainly not Quebec, and from my experiences there, not really Newfoundland. I imagine the Maritimes are similar.

There's a weird disconnect in this idea. Much like the idea of "Everyone is unique" - if everyone is unique, isn't uniqueness by definition common?

The idea of Canada being multicultural unto itself, is seemingly a noble idea. However, it is a very vague and nebulous idea. If Canadian-ness can be any aspect of any culture, what is Canadian?

A lot of ideas fall apart when people get too attached to them and take them to extremes. To use an example to our south, an extreme version of individual liberty is simply everyone putting themselves first all the time. That's not how humans function though - we live in societies and those societies require other humans to cooperate to make it work.

Multiculturalism - when taken to its extreme position - simply means that every culture gets to live how they want in a country regardless of the whole. It's a country as a bland hotel/international airport. There has to be some countervailing force or value the whole takes on, otherwise it's a free-for-all. Where that line between 'traditional Canadian values' and the values of the newcomer collide is always testy.

If 'Canada' defines its culture by not having one, how does that work long-term?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Did you read my post?

Oh, now I see sleight of hand. Crafty.

So if Quebec's isn't Anglo-Canada-in-French and isn't a place with (slightly) different cultural parameters... what is it?

Please fill us in!

Does the word start with R?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by wave46

The idea of Canada being multicultural unto itself, is seemingly a noble idea. However, it is a very vague and nebulous idea. If Canadian-ness can be any aspect of any culture, what is Canadian?

A lot of the point of Canadian is that we can make it be whatever we want it to be. Canada isn't a nation-state in the traditional sense as we don't share language, or history, or religion. There's no hard-and-fast requirements, it's almost literally just being in Canada to some degree. I have friends of mine who moved to Canada when they were children but who grew up in more rural, Canadian areas and towns, and I consider them more robustly Canadian than myself a lot of the time. I might look more 'Canadian' in some eyes because i'm white and born here and descended through some British ancestry, but I consider those foreign-born friends as having lived a more authentic Canadian upbringing and being shaped by that. A lot of it simply depends on where you are at that moment.

Originally Posted by wave46

If 'Canada' defines its culture by not having one, how does that work long-term?

I suppose we'll find out as the idea of Canada and Canadian culture shifts and changes pretty frequently. A lot of it is just personal preference and ideology. I consider people like Simu Liu and Ian Hanomansing just as Canadian as people like Alex Trebek or Eugene Levy, but i'm sure a lot of others would disagree with that.