Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Today's news: Québécois woman tables recommendations after tragic failings in our child protection system. François Legault had nominated her to lead a commission of inquiry.

https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/videos/6213109047001

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

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.

I don't know Simu Liu but Ian Hanomansing is totally Canadian. It would frankly be hard to argue the contrary.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by JHikka

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.


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.

Sure. I'd even make the argument that some who are new to this country and are more interested in it and what Canada is are more Canadian than 'domestics' who've been here for generations but gawk abroad almost exclusively now.

I have this nagging suspicion that if we don't define ourselves to be something in the near future, we'll end up being nothing. The post-national state isn't something I necessarily aspire to.

Our flexibility might either be our salvation or our downfall, but some backbone about what we believe in and who we are as a country, flaws and all is - in my opinion - the better option.

[someone123]

A lot of Canadians (maybe a plurality of those who consider themselves to be on the political left?) simultaneously hold these two sets of beliefs:

1) It was a tragedy that indigenous groups had their culture and language partially stripped away by residential schools, laws banning traditional ceremonies, etc. Today they should bring back their culture and language and have self-determination including control over territories and who does or doesn't live there.

2) Quebec laws and policies that try to promote French or preserve the local culture disadvantage newcomers or betray underlying racist sentiments and it would be better if they didn't exist. People in Montreal or maybe elsewhere in Quebec should have no reservations about people immigrating there from elsewhere and speaking whatever language they want. If French is replaced by English, well, that's just how it goes sometimes.

I think both are partially reasonable but need some nuance in order to be coherent and self-consistent. I tend to be OK with the idea that in well-governed societies, people may decide what they want their lifestyle to be like collectively, and this might sometimes involve preserving language and culture.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't know Simu Liu but Ian Hanomansing is totally Canadian. It would frankly be hard to argue the contrary.

The only people who wouldn't consider Ian Hanomansing to be "totally Canadian" are card-carrying racists. Same for anyone who doesn't consider Karim Ouellet, Akena Lohamba Okoko (aka KNLO) and Dr. Joanne Liu to be Québécois.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Assimilation yes?

Hmmm, didn't the British try this out on the French speaking habitants? I for one think it is a good thing they failed.

That's an entirely separate question and I didn't even venture an opinion on that. My "interventions" so far were strictly at the level of observing facts: if you're assimilated, then you're assimilated; if you're not assimilated, then you're not assimilated.

You don't get to prefer to not assimilate then complain that you're not assimilated. Can't have this both ways. If I moved to Moscow but lived in a francophone neighborhood, didn't learn a word of Russian, and didn't partake at all in Russian culture, I couldn't possibly see myself ever being outraged or surprised that Russians don't fully consider me a Russian who's part of their collective "us". And I'd be the one responsible for that state of affairs, not them.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by wave46

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?

I don't live in an airport, but I live in Toronto, which is the ne plus ultra of multiculturalism. I'm not bored here.

I'm not bored because culture isn't only defined by a place. There is the culture of a time period, and there are cultures of communities that are not defined by place (e.g. a subculture).

Then there is the fact that places that are more of a tabula rasa when it comes to an ethnic/place-based culture are the kinds of places that allow for cultural syncretism and that, eventually, becomes the culture of the place.

Most of us here are interested in cities, therefore human geography, so we give primacy to a culture of place.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by wave46

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?

I'm not speaking for all of Canada, for the record, I can only really speak to my own milieu (hence why I deferred to Acajack's descriptions of Quebec). For a province that is overwhelming composed of immigrants, or children of immigrants, it's pretty hard to have a shared cultural identity. It makes sense to me, then, that multiculturalism would have a greater resonance here.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

Nitpicking here, but as you and lio defined it - Quebecois are an ethnic group in the "old world" vein: language, ancestry.

So, Mexico and Jamaica: yes.

Australia: no.

If "Australian" is an ethnic group, then "Manitoban" is.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

otherwise you are "out"

Yep, which is 1) reasonable, 2) totally unsurprising, 3) their fault.

If you live in Russia but don't speak any Russian, don't engage with the Russian people and aren't the tiniest bit interested in Russian culture... then you are "out", yes. I don't see this as a problem. Some people are Russian. Others aren't. It's okay.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by jamincan

For a province that is overwhelming composed of immigrants, or children of immigrants, it's pretty hard to have a shared cultural identity.

We tend to see differences more but the permissible behaviours in Canada amount to a very narrow range in the overall spectrum of human social norms that currently exist around the world.

It's absolutely standard to downplay North American culture and history in general (e.g. McMansions and burgers and freeways are seen as "generic", not a part of shared culture here), partly because it's been exported then reimported so much, partly because a lot of it is American, and partly because some of it is low status.

How many immigrants to Canada completed their schooling here, and before that were taught prerequisites to enable them to succeed? How many lived in tiny comparative islands of Westernization before coming here, while most of their compatriots had no way of emigrating? Immigrants to Canada are not a random sample of people from around the world.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Nitpicking here, but as you and lio defined it - Quebecois are an ethnic group in the "old world" vein: language, ancestry.

So, Mexico and Jamaica: yes.

Australia: no.

If "Australian" is an ethnic group, then "Manitoban" is.

(Anglo-) Australian is an ethnic group, I'd say.

Just like "Old Stock Anglo-Canadian" is an ethnic group.

Or like "Manitoba Métis" is an ethnic group.

I hadn't given this any thought until now but my ex-gf has been living in Australia for many years and is now fluent in English. But she's not Australian yet, in my view. And I don't think she'd consider herself "Australian". Again, that's not a bad thing... it's just the facts.

On the other hand, "Manitoban", "Montrealer", "Torontonian", "Parisian", "Oklahoman", "Provençal", "Belgian", "Austrian", etc. aren't actually ethnic groups in my view. (Even though the latter two match the borders of countries.)

[wave46]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I'm not speaking for all of Canada, for the record, I can only really speak to my own milieu (hence why I deferred to Acajack's descriptions of Quebec). For a province that is overwhelming composed of immigrants, or children of immigrants, it's pretty hard to have a shared cultural identity. It makes sense to me, then, that multiculturalism would have a greater resonance here.

I think my question becomes this: Do you think a shared cultural identity that a majority of Canadians identify with should be a goal we aspire to? Something we should be interested in pursuing?

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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?

You seem to be trying really hard to put words in my mouth. I haven't the slightest authority to speak to Quebec culture, which is why I qualified my original post by saying 'Acajack's Quebec' - in other words, the version of Quebec as described in this thread by you.

Based on what you have written, it does not seem like Quebec is a multicultural society. It seems this is true for other parts of Canada as well. I think Newfoundland is quite similar to Quebec in that sense - there is as Quebec identity or a Newfoundland identity and you don't just automatically become a part of it.

For what it's worth, I like multicultural Ontario. It doesn't feel generic to me at all and it is most definitely something that is a part of my identity. Being a classic Ontarian, I've naturally considered that identity to be Canadian, which I guess is not quite accurate.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

- 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.
.

Just did a quick real-life check on this with one of my teenagers. Giu was immediately recognized and (AFAIK) correctly defined. I asked if they knew where it was from and the answer was "Haitian, I think...".

Now I live in Gatineau which is not on the level of Montreal but has a rapidly increasing amount of diversity.

Québécois French Canadian kids here don't have that accent you're referring to (yet) but they do have a lot of the vocabulary as they hang out in diverse groups. But French-language hiphop/rap from Montreal, France and Belgium, which is extremely popular here (I hear it blaring out of cars all the time) uses that language a lot.

The accent you described as transatlantic (I might call it "international francophonie") you definitely hear among young people here and I instantly recognized what you're talking about, but only really among minority kids: in our case they're very predominantly Black and Arab as these are the main immigrant groups.

Sometimes if I am biking or walking by a bunch of kids, or they're sitting near me on a bus, I get a vague recollection of the Paris suburbs. In Gatineau, which is kinda weird.

Hé les potes, j'ai kiffé

J'm'en bats les couilles

Passe-moi une clope

But then one of them drops an "hostie" or "tsé", and then I am jarred back into reality.

[lio45]

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.

That's quite unsurprising, though.

Similarly, the state identity of, say, Kansas is mostly going to be about currently living within the state borders of Kansas, while if you're with deep roots from the 50th State (Hawaiian) or from the 51st State (Puerto Rican) then there'll be an added element of cultural identity for you.

Guy from Kansas moves to Nebraska, he's pretty much become "a Nebraskan" within at most a few years of continuously living there.

(WASP) Guy from Kansas moves to Puerto Rico, he's still not Puerto Rican.

... we're on the same page there?

[hipster duck]

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.

Well, first of all, nobody lives at an international airport, so most of the reason why things feel sterile there is because nobody has any skin in the game. There will never be a city that really feels like the airport; if people think that a city has the soul of an airport, they're not looking hard enough.

Secondly, I don't think Canadians think of themselves as citizens of the world. Maybe some of the more haughty ones do, but that's true of people in most other countries. And I also think that having an identity usually does jack shit if, as you say, your material sense of wellbeing goes out the window. So if the car plant closes, being a proud Canadian with a rich cultural tradition isn't going to help you materially. I find that the groups that cling to their identity are usually the ones who are the most materially deprived. In fact, you can pretty much make a perfect inverse correlation between asserting one's cultural identity as a group and socioeconomic status of your group in society.

And I don't think people are capable of living in a collective arrangement without some form of culture springing up. Like I said in my reply to wave46, not all culture is tied to place; much of it - most of it, really, for most middle class people under 60 in Western countries - is the culture of a time/epoch or belonging to a subculture. I really don't think my life as an Ontarian is culturally poorer and less meaningful than a French Quebecker of similar age and class.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by lio45

On the other hand, "Manitoban", "Montrealer", "Torontonian", "Parisian", "Oklahoman", "Provençal", "Belgian", "Austrian", etc. aren't actually ethnic groups in my view. (Even though the latter two match the borders of countries.)

Would you consider French an ethnicity?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I haven't the slightest authority to speak to Quebec culture, which is why I qualified my original post by saying 'Acajack's Quebec' - in other words, the version of Quebec as described in this thread by you.

In other words, the reality of Quebec, that everyone who knows what they're talking about agrees with.

You can drop the "Acajack's" and just start to say "Quebec" from now on.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Nitpicking here, but as you and lio defined it - Quebecois are an ethnic group in the "old world" vein: language, ancestry.

So, Mexico and Jamaica: yes.

Australia: no.

If "Australian" is an ethnic group, then "Manitoban" is.

Point taken. I see what you mean.

Though I think Quebec also has comparables with a place like Brazil. It's much more diverse than Jamaica and Mexico, and no matter what happens will likely be more diverse going forward.

You are correct about Australia, which is more like Anglo-Canada, though with a noticeably stronger homegrown culture and identity.

Under an alternate history scenario, Quebec might have been a French-speaking Australia. Or even a French-speaking version of Anglo-Canada. But I think that ship has sailed.