Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

I'm not wanting to bash on Seine-St-Denis at all. But our French friends can't deny that it's the most powerful symbol in France of the banlieues and what is wrong with them.

But yeah, Trappes is also one of the worst banlieue municipalities, and it is in the posh western side of the Paris suburbs in the Yvelines.

I once knew someone who lived there. The grands ensembles were in fact very shitty, with burned out cars in the parking lots of high-rise apartment buildings. But there were also very nice streets with well-kept houses.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But yeah, Trappes is also one of the worst banlieue municipalities, and it is in the posh western side of the Paris suburbs in the Yvelines.

I was born and raised in Yvelines and know the département very well. Beside Trappes, Les Mureaux and Mantes-la-Jolie have also been harshly hit by impoverishment and related issues.

No département of the metro area was entirely spared. Val-d'Oise, Essonne, Seine-et-Marne... Each one of them has their nice and rougher areas.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

It's a little bit like saying that this or that ward of Tokyo have the "highest crime rates in Japan". It's all very relative isn't it? Crime rates in Europe are low. So high crime rates in France would not be very high crime rates in the US. I certainly feel safer walking in the streets of Seine-Saint-Denis than in many neighborhoods of the US (ghettos of Chicago, LA, most of Baltimore, etc).
.

Sure, but places can still feel less safe relative to what one is used to.

I live in Québec which is also extremely safe. But even in Montreal there is a notable difference in "feel" between an area like Montréal-Nord and the student district of Côte-des-Neiges, where one of my kids lives.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I was born and raised in Yvelines and know the département very well. Beside Trappes, Les Mureaux and Mantes-la-Jolie have also been harshly hit by impoverishment and related issues.

.

In France, even the shitty areas have pretty names!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

So, to go back to the original point: would anyone here be saying "if we don't pay attention to our immigration, we're going to end up like the Bronx "? Probably not, because you guys are more aware of NYC, and less into clichés regarding its boroughs. (whereas here in Europe "the Bronx" is a byword for decrepit and violent neighborhood, which is the cliché you seem to have regarding Seine-Saint-Denis)

The Bronx is also very much associated with those clichés here. When I was younger I had a girlfriend who lived in a part of Gatineau with social housing (HLM), and when she told me where she lived she said "ouais, mon quartier c'est un peu le Bronx".

And of course Detroit is another big one.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The point is that the exploitation is happening within their community. The person at the top of the pyramid who's getting their money and treats them like garbage has the same skin colour and speaks the same language.

I don't think that's materially different from a troubled Paris banlieue, where the people's lives are generally made harder by thieves, rapists and drug dealers who are from the same ethnic communities.

The anger when it comes out is still directed at the police, the French state, and increasingly (from what I gather), the white Euro-French.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But yeah, Trappes is also one of the worst banlieue municipalities, and it is in the posh western side of the Paris suburbs in the Yvelines.

I once knew someone who lived there. The grands ensembles were in fact very shitty, with burned out cars in the parking lots of high-rise apartment buildings. But there were also very nice streets with well-kept houses.

Trappes is worse than Seine-Saint-Denis. But then Trappes is only 13 km², and not all of it is ugly high-rise buildings. So let's say perhaps we're talking of at most 10 km² of bad urban environment. That's barely the size of Côte-Saint-Luc and Westmount combined. So we're talking of some small area really. All around Trappes it's either nice urban environment or scenic commuter belt mixed with countryside and golf courses.

The main thing about the Parisian banlieue is DIVERSITY. It's very, very diverse, in a way North American suburbs aren't. The banlieue grew haphazardly, without any grid or preconceived plan. The architecture is also extremely diverse, from 18th century farms and manors to 19th century villas and Haussmannian buildings, to early 20th century cheap and ugly detached houses, 1930s brick mid-rise buildings, 1950s-1970s high-rise commie blocks, all sorts of shapes of detached houses, and lots of cut in the built-up areas, with railway lines, woods, stadiums, sometimes even a farm field here and there that has mysteriously remained until today. There is no area of the banlieue where it's going to be 100% "grands ensembles". Even in the areas that concentrate them most, I could walk 10 minutes and find streets of detached houses, and then at the corner of the street the 18th century building from an old farm (like a barn, or a dovecote).

[niwell]

It's not dissimilar to the reputation a place like Scarborough has. Yes, there are tower communities with troubling issues. But it's a big place and there are also neighbourhoods replete with mansions and the full gamut of stuff in between. On the whole it's pretty middle-class.

I still don't think the stereotypical banlieue model is the worst case of where we are headed- nor is the American one. Rather the worst trajectory would be one where pockets of formerly "normal" neighbourhoods become overcrowded through illegal small-scale tenancies. The big corporations in control of rental towers are less likely to allow this to happen.

What comes to mind to me is the situation occurring in a place like Windsor East in Johannesburg - a neighbourhood made up of formerly working class lowrise apartments that's become known for dangerous overcrowding / illegal occupants. And a reputation of being predominantly populated by "foreigners". Often exploited by absentee building owners of the same background. At street level it looks pretty unassuming at first glance and is in close proximity to relatively wealthy areas: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tifH1H2nKWjxAFsg8

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I think the scenario of a race riot in Brampton involving Indian foreign students is extremely unlikely.

If it came from anywhere, it might start with a group that is now entering the second generation, born in Canada that still finds itself at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, like Somalis, but they're much smaller and their problems predate Trudeau's immigration scheme.

This jives with what I've been hearing from people who have lived in places like Brampton and are usually 2nd/3rd generation immigrants. I suspect that will be the largest backlash if it does happen. Also the factor that people are angry they're being painted with the same brush as newly arrived international students / TFWs, which is where the anger is being directed.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

It's not dissimilar to the reputation a place like Scarborough has. Yes, there are tower communities with troubling issues. But it's a big place and there are also neighbourhoods replete with mansions and the full gamut of stuff in between. On the whole it's pretty middle-class.

I still don't think the stereotypical banlieue model is the worst case of where we are headed- nor is the American one. Rather the worst trajectory would be one where pockets of formerly "normal" neighbourhoods become overcrowded through illegal small-scale tenancies. The big corporations in control of rental towers are less likely to allow this to happen.

What comes to mind to me is the situation occurring in a place like Windsor East in Johannesburg - a neighbourhood made up of formerly working class lowrise apartments that's become known for dangerous overcrowding / illegal occupants. And a reputation of being predominantly populated by "foreigners". Often exploited by absentee building owners of the same background. At street level it looks pretty unassuming at first glance and is in close proximity to relatively wealthy areas: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tifH1H2nKWjxAFsg8




This jives with what I've been hearing from people who have lived in places like Brampton and are usually 2nd/3rd generation immigrants. I suspect that will be the largest backlash if it does happen. Also the factor that people are angry they're being painted with the same brush as newly arrived international students / TFWs, which is where the anger is being directed.

Under a worst-case scenario, areas like this one in Ottawa (there are quite a few like these in Ottawa) could become like that fairly quickly:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3676...oASAFQAw%3D%3D

There are areas like this in a number of Canadian cities.

Here is one near me in Gatineau. It's fine at the moment. In the sense that it's extremely safe. But it wouldn't take too much to flip it I'd say.

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4944...oASAFQAw%3D%3D

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Renard, don't you know Brisavoine is the most obstinate and ruthless debater on the entire internet?
You'll never beat him at it. Even when he's wrong..

His religious zeal for debate and tangents kind of reminds me of legacy Anglo-Montrealers who will attack Quebec and the Quebec government no matter how logical or reasonable the policy is, and refuses even to budge or give an inch to francization no matter how much those policies are better for society at large and Canadian unity.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

As I posted upthread, we also have the issue that Anglo-Canadians are very squeamish when it comes to discussing these sorts of things, which increases the risk that tensions build up under the radar and suddenly burst into some UK-like situation.

We saw an example of this with the Freedom Convoy. Severe public discontent about covid restrictions was mostly suppressed by a societal aversion to acknowledging its existence, until suddenly it wasn't.

Completely agree. Right now Quebec is really the only place in Canada mature enough to have this conversation. In Anglo-Canada the default reaction is to sweep it under the carpet and ignore the risks at our peril.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In France, even the shitty areas have pretty names!

Actually it's in order to distinguish it from Mantes-la-Ville. Ironically Mantes-la-Jolie is the real city, whereas Mantes-la-Ville is just a suburb.

Mantes was originally a cathedral city, like Melun or Meaux. Most of its city center was destroyed by stupid US bombing in 1944. Only the cathedral has survived. King Henry IV who visited Mantes in the 1590s during the civil war that plagued France allegedly found the city so beautiful he called it a "jolie ville", and that's where the nickname comes from. In the 20th century they officially added "la-Jolie" to the name in order to distinguish it from Mantes-la-Ville. I don't know why Mantes-la-Ville is called Mantes-la-Ville though. It perhaps has something to do with the cathedral city (cité) being a fief of the bishop whereas the "ville" was a fief of the secular lord. There are many such instances in France.

Anyway, the city center of Mantes-la-Jolie is ok, beautiful cathedral and rebuilt city center after the war (they tried to copy the old architectural style). It's the outskirts of Mantes-la-Jolie which have large commie blocks and projects.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In France, even the shitty areas have pretty names!

Ha! Actually, the worst parts of Toronto all have twee names that conjure up Merry Olde England. Some examples:

- Shoreham
- Orton Park
- Falstaff
- Chalkfarm
- Exbury
- Flemington (also Flemingdon!)
- Galloway

And, of course, the original: Regent Park.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

And, of course, the original: Regent Park.

The Regent who wished to eradicate the French language in Canada and totally assimilate the French Canadians. Ironically, he was also a Francophile, but this is not an isolated case in British history. Many English elites were both Francophile AND super hostile to the French Canadians.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Mantes was originally a cathedral city, like Melun or Meaux. Most of its city center was destroyed by stupid US bombing in 1944.

Anyway, the city center of Mantes-la-Jolie is ok, beautiful cathedral and rebuilt city center after the war (they tried to copy the old architectural style).

The heaviest price to pay for the May 1940 humiliation... Mantes is the last subprefecture before you get to Normandy.
It still breaks my heart when I see how much was destroyed by the allied bombings, and the tens of thousands of French civilians killed.
Most of the time, the Germans weren't even hidden on the spots they bombed out, which is quite ironical.

Their intelligence sucked. They sill cry over the 10k men killed on Omaha beach. Once again, their bombing failed to crush the actual targets.

Maybe the French resistance could've done a better job at seconding their intelligence, though.
Only historians could tell. Besides, military technology sucked, was inaccurate back then.

Today, Mantes's downtown looks rather average. It's not the pretty thing it must've been prior to WWII.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by mousquet

It's not the pretty thing it must've been prior to WWII.

Indeed.











Mantes city center before the war:



After reconstruction:



The price paid by French civilians in 1944 is one of the darkest spots in the history of the Allies during WW2. It ranks up there with the shameful way the Soviet Army allowed Warsaw to be crushed by the Nazis in 1944 without intervening. The US and British commanders were distrustful of the French Résistance in terms of infrastructure destruction. They preferred to do carpet bombing, which was most of the time inaccurate and unsuccessful in terms of destroying the infrastructure used by the Germans, but very effective in erasing centuries of French art and history. The Résistance was much more effective in destroying key bridges and railway lines.

The so-called "liberation" of Mantes is explained here (as a Frenchman, can't remember who, famously said in 1944: it's a curious way to call "liberation" the bombing out and destruction of a city):

Yvelines. Histoire : le général Patton passe en force pour libérer Mantes-la-Jolie

Alors que Mantes-la-Jolie (Yvelines) commémorait ce dimanche sa libération, retour avec l'historien Bruno Renoult sur l'arrivée de Patton dans le Mantois.



https://actu.fr/ile-de-france/mantes..._18298564.html

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The price paid by French civilians in 1944 is one of the darkest spots in the history of the Allies during WW2.

Oh well, while we're at it, why not mentioning mass raping performed by US military who widely saw French ladies as a war prize?
There was this saying in the French population:
From the Germans, we had to hide young men. Now we have to hide young women from the Americans.
Men had to hide from the Germans not to be deported in Germany for forced enlistment. The Germans needed French workers to support their economy.
Now raping by US soldiers was so bad that the US general staff had to do something about it. They feared that the reputation of their army would be compromised.

They freed our country from Nazi occupation, so we're not going to blame on them too much.
Still, there are ugly details that they won't brag about in their Hollywood movies.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Under a worst-case scenario, areas like this one in Ottawa (there are quite a few like these in Ottawa) could become like that fairly quickly:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3676...oASAFQAw%3D%3D

There are areas like this in a number of Canadian cities.

Here is one near me in Gatineau. It's fine at the moment. In the sense that it's extremely safe. But it wouldn't take too much to flip it I'd say.

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4944...oASAFQAw%3D%3D

A street or two of community housing doesn't suddenly create an entire ghetto. These areas in Ottawa are actually much smaller than similar projects in Toronto. And the ones in Toronto are smaller than the ones in the US or even Europe. Our risk is not in these neighbourhoods. Our risk in areas where every house is rented out to 2-3 families and every two car driveway has 4 cars. Ironically, people in these community housing projects live better than those living in basements in Brampton or Scarborough. Stittsville or parts of Kanata are more likely to end up in bad shape than the 2-3 street community housing projects.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A street or two of community housing doesn't suddenly create an entire ghetto. These areas in Ottawa are actually much smaller than similar projects in Toronto. And the ones in Toronto are smaller than the ones in the US or even Europe. Our risk is not in these neighbourhoods. Our risk in areas where every house is rented out to 2-3 families and every two car driveway has 4 cars. Ironically, people in these community housing projects live better than those living in basements in Brampton or Scarborough. Stittsville or parts of Kanata are more likely to end up in bad shape than the 2-3 street community housing projects.

I admit to thinking about the sea of 2000-2500 sq ft SFHs in Brampton. At first glance it appears extremely unlikely that such valuable properties could ever become a less attractive area. But yeah having them overcrowded with multiple tenants could actually do that. And of course with fairly high rents it makes it economically feasible to do that, even with high property costs. Also, with plummeting birth rates the traditional clientele for these large SFHs isn’t as numerous as it was before.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I admit to thinking about the sea of 2000-2500 sq ft SFHs in Brampton. At first glance it appears extremely unlikely that such valuable properties could ever become a less attractive area. But yeah having them overcrowded with multiple tenants could actually do that. And of course with fairly high rents it makes it economically feasible to do that, even with high property costs. Also, with plummeting birth rates the traditional clientele for these large SFHs isn’t as numerous as it was before.

It's lack of affordability that creates ghettos, usually defined by overcrowding and poor quality of housing stock. Which is exactly what you see in Brampton and Scarborough. And increasingly in places like Kanata and Stittsville. The crowding is what keeps up values. Instead of building two townhouses or four duplexes, we build an SFH and stuff 2-3 families. This is a recipe for wealth inequality and poor affordability. And of course, ghettoization.

There's a tendency to ascribe clustering as simply a function of ethnicity. Knowing immigrants, I don't buy this. They go where housing is cheapest in absolute terms. And Brampton, Mississauga, Scarborough, etc are the places where you can still rent a decent sized space for a ~$1k within functional transit coverage. And that's what those basements are. $1k one-bedrooms. As housing gets more expensive in places like Ottawa, you're seeing suburbs here go down the same path. There's a reason why all the South Asians are staying close to work in the West End and not renting basements in Orleans.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's lack of affordability that creates ghettos, usually defined by overcrowding and poor quality of housing stock. Which is exactly what you see in Brampton and Scarborough. And increasingly in places like Kanata and Stittsville. The crowding is what keeps up values. Instead of building two townhouses or four duplexes, we build an SFH and stuff 2-3 families. This is a recipe for wealth inequality and poor affordability. And of course, ghettoization.

I don't think lack of affordability causes ghettos. I mean it is causing crowding in these areas but a true ghetto happens when everybody with any means flees an area. Actually our lack of affordability is probably preventing ghettoziation. If Milton was still cheap the family who work at the airport with one kid who don't want to live next to 14 people in Bramption would move. And eventually it would be all lower income. Making it only landlords, who have no incentive to maintain the properties etc. Adding duplexes has traditionally also been seen as causing families to fllee though with 10 people living ina SFHs becoming common that is perhaps a better outcome. A bylaw against rooming houses seems pretty straightforward though I guess the mayor of Bramption isn't going to start that fight.