Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I suppose if you isolate the specific period around 1763 (Treaty of Paris), 1776 (US Independence) and the War of 1812, this is a valid point that could me made.

Beyond that, though, once the matter of the existence of the US vs. distinct entity or entities north of the border was largely settled, I think it's highly debatable whether the eventual setup turned out to be the best one for Canadiens (francophones), as opposed to them hypothetically choosing a more independent route at various junctures of history (Rebellion of 1837-39, Union Act of 1840, Confederation of 1867).

The Quebec Act of 1775 is arguably the single most important factor influencing the current makeup of North America.

- it guaranteed French legal, linguistic and religious rights, and it gave control of the entire Ohio Territory and upper Mississippi valley to Quebec.
- it fueled American resentment to the crown, and was arguably the "last straw" leading to the American Revolution.

You can thank the British Crown for the continued existence of the French fact in North America. There is no doubt about this.

[Acajack]

Was it really the fact that we were united (to varying degrees throughout the period) or was it rather that regardless of how we were structured, we were under the protective shield of the British Empire that prevented the Americans from swallowing us up?

Newfoundland didn't join Canada until 1949, and was even independent for a time, and the Americans never annexed them.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Was it really the fact that we were united (to varying degrees throughout the period) or was it rather that regardless of how we were structured, we were under the protective shield of the British Empire that prevented the Americans from swallowing us up?

Newfoundland didn't join Canada until 1949, and was even independent for a time, and the Americans never annexed them.

It was the British control, hence Chretien's love of the British crown.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The Quebec Act of 1775 is arguably the single most important factor influencing the current makeup of North America.

- it guaranteed French legal, linguistic and religious rights, and it gave control of the entire Ohio Territory and upper Mississippi valley to Quebec.
- it fueled American resentment to the crown, and was arguably the "last straw" leading to the American Revolution.

You can thank the British Crown for the continued existence of the French fact in North America. There is no doubt about this.

I don't harbour any ill-will towards British people today but you'll forgive me for not being that enthusiastic about this aspect of history as the British Crown attempted an ethnic cleansing and genocide of my forebears that resulted in many generations of miserable existence for them and the direct death of about half of their peers.

In terms of the 18th century game of Stratego you are referring to and its alleged lasting effects, it's always best not to confuse "strategy" with "magnanimity".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

quite possibly. And surely they would all still be French-speaking states.

Not sure what this means.

None of the provinces except Quebec (and to some degree New Brunswick and Manitoba, at the time) could have been called French-speaking anyway.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Was it really the fact that we were united (to varying degrees throughout the period) or was it rather that regardless of how we were structured, we were under the protective shield of the British Empire that prevented the Americans from swallowing us up?

Newfoundland didn't join Canada until 1949, and was even independent for a time, and the Americans never annexed them.

If we're specifically talking about 1812, then I think being unified was a critical factor. People often forget that 1812 was probably the single most opportune moment for America to ever annex Canada. Napoleon was about to begin his disastrous march on Moscow, following which his retreat would mark the best opportunity for the British-led coalition to stop the continental menace for good (until next time). The amount of resources available to protect a fairly unprofitable, cold, forested wasteland were slim. The actual defense of Canada contained only a handful of British regulars, and many of the most famous victories in the early part of the war were won with the blood of Canadian militia and native allies. It wasn't really until The Battle of Lundy's Lane and the subsequent incursions into the American heartland (leading to the famous burning of the Whitehouse and Battle New Orleans) that Britain began to flex it's military muscle on the continent. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but I've read that fewer than 10,000 British regulars were ever sent to North America, and the vast majority of those would've been after key defensive victories like Queenston Heights, Chateauguay, and Chrysler's Farm. The American army was in its infancy and faced leadership and logistical difficulties that allowed for Canada to barely hold up an adequate defense.

After 1814 the opportunity had passed the Americans for good. Following the Battle of Waterloo, Britain's global dominance would not be challenged for nearly 100 years. At that point falling under the umbrella of the British Empire was as close to a guarantee of security against a foreign power as a country/colony could have. The American army would not be truly competitive with a European power until the end of the Civil War, but even then, a land incursion into Canada would likely guarantee the full weight of the British navy thrown against the Eastern Seaboard. The U.S. navy wouldn't compete with the British until after World War 1, at which point annexation of a budding ally and relatively developed nation would be unsavory to say the least.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

If we're specifically talking about 1812, then I think being unified was a critical factor. People often forget that 1812 was probably the single most opportune moment for America to ever annex Canada. Napoleon was about to begin his disastrous march on Moscow, following which his retreat would mark the best opportunity for the British-led coalition to stop the continental menace for good (until next time). The amount of resources available to protect a fairly unprofitable, cold, forested wasteland were slim. The actual defense of Canada contained only a handful of British regulars, and many of the most famous victories in the early part of the war were won with the blood of Canadian militia and native allies. It wasn't really until The Battle of Lundy's Lane and the subsequent incursions into the American heartland (leading to the famous burning of the Whitehouse and Battle New Orleans) that Britain began to flex it's military muscle on the continent. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but I've read that fewer than 10,000 British regulars were ever sent to North America, and the vast majority of those would've been after key defensive victories like Queenston Heights, Chateauguay, and Chrysler's Farm. The American army was in its infancy and faced leadership and logistical difficulties that allowed for Canada to barely hold up an adequate defense.

After 1814 the opportunity had passed the Americans for good. Following the Battle of Waterloo, Britain's global dominance would not be challenged for nearly 100 years. At that point falling under the umbrella of the British Empire was as close to a guarantee of security against a foreign power as a country/colony could have. The American army would not be truly competitive with a European power until the end of the Civil War, but even then, a land incursion into Canada would likely guarantee the full weight of the British navy thrown against the Eastern Seaboard. The U.S. navy wouldn't compete with the British until after World War 1, at which point annexation of a budding ally and relatively developed nation would be unsavory to say the least.

This was an interesting post, but I was referring more to the latter part of the 1800s.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't harbour any ill-will towards British people today but you'll forgive me for not being that enthusiastic about this aspect of history as the British Crown attempted an ethnic cleansing and genocide of my forebears that resulted in many generations of miserable existence for them and the direct death of about half of their peers.

In terms of the 18th century game of Stratego you are referring to and its alleged lasting effects, it's always best not to confuse "strategy" with "magnanimity".

You don't have to like the British or think they were magnanimous to understand that they risked rebellion in the Americas for Quebec and Indigenous rights and lands. Again, the Americans cited the very existence of these rights in their declaration of independence. And the subsequent war saw "Quebec" substantially reduced in size, with the loss of all that is now American territory. If the USA, had the chance, the most certainly would have finished the job in the early 19th century.

I was always under the impression that Quebecers understood this, hence the license plate slogan.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but I've read that fewer than 10,000 British regulars were ever sent to North America, and the vast majority of those would've been after key defensive victories like Queenston Heights, Chateauguay, and Chrysler's Farm.

I am not so sure about this. Queenston Heights was 1,300 British soldiers according to Wikipedia. New Orleans was 8,000. If we go back in time, the 1758 siege of Louisbourg was 26,000 British soldiers (some would have been North American but that's true for all of these battles); 1812 had a smaller scale. Canadian historians tend to focus on Ontario and Quebec in 1812 because most of them are from that area and that was the more successful part of the war as far as Britain was concerned.

It seems really hard to imagine how Quebec could have remained independent without protection from Britain (which included a large buffer since the Maritimes were British too and the ocean route would have been the easiest way to move troops around back then). Newfoundland was never independent from a defence perspective, and it is much less relevant to the US.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't harbour any ill-will towards British people today but you'll forgive me for not being that enthusiastic about this aspect of history as the British Crown attempted an ethnic cleansing and genocide of my forebears that resulted in many generations of miserable existence for them and the direct death of about half of their peers.

In terms of the 18th century game of Stratego you are referring to and its alleged lasting effects, it's always best not to confuse "strategy" with "magnanimity".

Oh yeah.

Nobody's going to accuse the British Crown of the era as acting in anything but its own self-interest. It didn't do things out of any concern for the rights of its less-favoured groups (Irish, Scots, Canadiens, et al.) but mostly as a pragmatic response (i.e. They didn't want a revolution by the people)

Losing their foothold in North America (even with Canada as a nominally independent Dominion) would have been quite a loss of face for the British pre-WWI.

By the time the British had lost any real interest in maintaining an Empire (Post-WWI and definitely post-WWII), the Americans had moved onto more interesting places to flex their muscle, Latin America most notably. A war to win North America from a friendly and benign people would have been a waste of resources by that point.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by someone123

I am not so sure about this. Queenston Heights was 1,300 British soldiers according to Wikipedia. New Orleans was 8,000. If we go back in time, the 1758 siege of Louisbourg was 26,000 British soldiers (some would have been North American but that's true for all of these battles); 1812 had a smaller scale. Canadian historians tend to focus on Ontario and Quebec in 1812 because most of them are from that area and that was the more successful part of the war as far as Britain was concerned.

It seems really hard to imagine how Quebec could have remained independent without protection from Britain (which included a large buffer since the Maritimes were British too and the ocean route would have been the easiest way to move troops around back then). Newfoundland was never independent from a defence perspective, and it is much less relevant to the US.

I don't think Queenston Heights was all British regulars, probably the most of the early battles mentioned but Canadian militia certainly would have participated. Isaac Brock had just come from The Siege of Detroit where he was camped with numerous native allies and some local militia.

10,000 was in reference to the War of 1812 alone. New Orleans was by far the biggest engagement in North America.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't harbour any ill-will towards British people today but you'll forgive me for not being that enthusiastic about this aspect of history as the British Crown attempted an ethnic cleansing and genocide of my forebears that resulted in many generations of miserable existence for them and the direct death of about half of their peers.

Genocide? No. The Acadian Expulsion was not genocide, and Acadian Historian Maurice Basque agrees as such. A genocide would require proof that the British sought to kill Acadians which is not the case. If the British were forcibly seeking to kill Acadians then they wouldn't have deported them to other British colonies. The purpose of the expulsion was to remove military supply lines and forced deportation was common back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Ethnic cleansing? Sure, but not in a similar context to 19th or 20th century events, but certainly not genocide.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

It seems really hard to imagine how Quebec could have remained independent without protection from Britain (which included a large buffer since the Maritimes were British too and the ocean route would have been the easiest way to move troops around back then). Newfoundland was never independent from a defence perspective, and it is much less relevant to the US.

Perhaps not, but in order for this part of the world to remain under the British defence shield, a strong political union of the colonies (Canada East-Canada West, Upper Canada-Lower Canada, British North America, Confederation) was not really necessary.

Under an alternate history scenario we could very well have all remained independent colonies under British control and protection, and later transitioned to status as a bunch of independent countries like the British colonies of the Caribbean or the Spanish colonies of Latin America did.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Genocide? No. The Acadian Expulsion was not genocide, and Acadian Historian Maurice Basque agrees as such. A genocide would require proof that the British sought to kill Acadians which is not the case. If the British were forcibly seeking to kill Acadians then they wouldn't have deported them to other British colonies. The purpose of the expulsion was to remove military supply lines and forced deportation was common back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Ethnic cleansing? Sure, but not in a similar context to 19th or 20th century events, but certainly not genocide.

Haha. I knew that would get your goat.

Genocide doesn't necessarily involve violently killing everyone BTW.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Oh yeah.

Nobody's going to accuse the British Crown of the era as acting in anything but its own self-interest. It didn't do things out of any concern for the rights of its less-favoured groups (Irish, Scots, Canadiens, et al.) but mostly as a pragmatic response (i.e. They didn't want a revolution by the people)

Losing their foothold in North America (even with Canada as a nominally independent Dominion) would have been quite a loss of face for the British pre-WWI.

By the time the British had lost any real interest in maintaining an Empire (Post-WWI and definitely post-WWII), the Americans had moved onto more interesting places to flex their muscle, Latin America most notably. A war to win North America from a friendly and benign people would have been a waste of resources by that point.

It didn't happen immediately of course but a lot of people seriously overestimate how long it took the US and UK to start slowly warming up to each other over the course of the century that followed American independence.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

10,000 was in reference to the War of 1812 alone. New Orleans was by far the biggest engagement in North America.

It was just a bit bigger than Baltimore which is listed as just 5,000 infantry (that would mean a lot more than 5,000 British military personnel in total).

My point was more that Queenston Heights as one example is not really the big or decisive battle it's sometimes made out to be. It was not large in the context of that era in North America. Had Britain not gone on to attack the US at a much larger scale, who knows what would have happened? The US could have just attacked Canada again and again. Furthermore had Britain lost the "lower" areas (Atlantic -> Quebec -> Ontario) the "upper" areas would have been lost for sure. There's no plausible scenario where amazing British soldiers hold off Americans forever around Niagara and everything else in North America becomes part of the US. A path to the open ocean was necessary.

A wider point is there was lots of horse trading after the fact when it came time to draw up treaties (you could win place A and then trade it away at negotiation time for place B where you lost), and the great powers decided when to stop fighting. The outcome depended more on the long-term balance of power than the specific outcomes of battles, even though the battles tend to be remembered for patriotic reasons. Quebec would have had no hope of holding off the US in the long run.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Perhaps not, but in order for this part of the world to remain under the British defence shield, a strong political union of the colonies (Canada East-Canada West, Upper Canada-Lower Canada, British North America, Confederation) was not really necessary.

Under an alternate history scenario we could very well have all remained independent colonies, and later transitioned to status as a bunch of independent countries like the British colonies of the Caribbean or the Spanish colonies of Latin America did.

Perhaps, but the British were getting to the 'less interested' point of their Empire by that point and pawning off that responsibility onto a loyal national government with the Empire's implicit backup was the most expedient solution for a bunch of reasons.

It did kind of work out for the Brits, if one thinks about it. The creation of Canada and subsequent phased real independence of it was a cost borne in blood by Canadians fighting in European wars. Canada could have told the British to pound sand (OK, not so much in WWI) or done more like the United States in the early part of those wars, with a Lend-Lease thing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

In the modern world, I actually think an independent Quebec would quickly find itself far more Anglicized than they imagine, a necessity of operating in the modern world. Canada, for better or worse, provides some strategic depth to Quebec, with additional French speakers and a broader imposition of the French language.

So that one's still around? (I used to hear it all the time when I lived in Ontario. Always a huge hit I guess.)

You guys should know that basically NO ONE in Quebec would agree with this. Even Quebec federalists wouldn't agree with it. They just think that the other advantages of remaining in Canada (a hugely successful country by any standards) outweigh the extra perks that an independent Quebec would obviously bring linguistically and culturally. And that the arrangement with Canada provides a decent amount of latitude to avert a significant number of the "risks" to the language and culture that come with sharing a country with you guys. Most of the time.

I repeat: no one in Quebec with a brain thinks that Canada provides a buffer that protects French, and certainly not more than an independent country would.

You should also know that to us this sounds a helluva lot like the British Raj telling Indians: "You guys couldn't even run your trains on time without us!"

For a bunch of people who see themselves as the ultimate post-colonials and who are quite preoccupied with such matters, you sure haven't lost your touch!

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Genocide doesn't necessarily involve violently killing everyone BTW.

Thanks for moving the goalposts on what classifies as genocide to fit your narrative.

Originally Posted by someone123

A wider point is there was lots of horse trading after the fact when it came time to draw up treaties (you could win place A and then trade it away at negotiation time for place B where you lost), and the great powers decided when to stop fighting. The outcome depended more on the long-term balance of power than the specific outcomes of battles, even though the battles tend to be remembered for patriotic reasons. Quebec would have had no hope of holding off the US in the long run.

Definitely.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Thanks for moving the goalposts on what classifies as genocide to fit your narrative.


.

I am a man of my times.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...cide-1.5161681