Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

Are you seriously saying that British colonial decision-making in 1770s North America, and which led to the American Revolution, was in fact driven by a concern for the rights of Indigenous people and the French population of Quebec?

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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!

Jean Chretien does and he's the poster child for Francophone federalists. To him, the only realistic outcomes are a Francophone Quebec in Canada, an Anglophone Quebec as a US state, or impoverished independence Francophone Quebec.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Are you seriously saying that British colonial decision-making in 1770s North America, and which led to the American Revolution, was in fact driven by a concern for the rights of Indigenous people and the French population of Quebec?

To some extent, yes, but the act was created mostly for British military self interest.

The Quebec Act was intended primarily to thwart American colonial ambitions to the west of the Applalachians. In addition to guaranteeing Quebec a huge amount of territory in the midwest, it also created a large parcel of Indian reserve lands that would be blocked to colonial settlement. This is what caused the most resentment in the American colonies.

Why did the Brits do this? It really wasn't so much magnanimity as it was impatience with the restless American colonists. The Brits feared frontier troubles with the natives as the American colonists ventured west. The Crown was not interested in wasting military resources guarding an expanding western American frontier. They had bigger fish to fry, and were worried about the expense of it all, hence the decision to create lands reserved for the natives between the American colonies and the expanded province of Quebec.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

To some extent, yes, but the act was created mostly for British military self interest.

The Quebec Act was intended primarily to thwart American colonial ambitions to the west of the Applalachians. In addition to guaranteeing Quebec a huge amount of territory in the midwest, it also created a large parcel of Indian reserve lands that would be blocked to colonial settlement. This is what caused the most resentment in the American colonies.

Why did the Brits do this? It really wasn't so much magnanimity as it was impatience with the restless American colonists. The Brits feared frontier troubles with the natives as the American colonists ventured west. The Crown was not interested in wasting military resources guarding an expanding western American frontier. They had bigger fish to fry, and were worried about the expense of it all, hence the decision to create lands reserved for the natives between the American colonies and the expanded province of Quebec.

It's worth noting that "giving land to Quebec" = "assigning land to the British-controlled province of Quebec".

Quebec was "theirs", so it wasn't giving lebensraum land to the French or Canadiens.

It was a military and administrative decision to organize the land it was left with in North America.

Not really a plum to francophones (or Indigenous people for that matter).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Jean Chretien does and he's the poster child for Francophone federalists. To him, the only realistic outcomes are a Francophone Quebec in Canada, an Anglophone Quebec as a US state, or impoverished independence Francophone Quebec.

Is this really that different from what I said, though?

Has Chrétien ever said that French is more likely to die or seriously decline in an independent Quebec than in status quo in Canada? (This supposed dilemma was cited by Truenorth, and not by you in your comments on the Chrétien book.)

I'd agree that Chrétien is probably in the "economic risks that aren't worth it" camp when it comes to independence, though he's said before that if independence happened, it would be a shame but the sun would still come up and he'd still live at his camp on Lac des Piles. Life would go on.

He also once said that he had dreams of being the hero who woke Montcalm in the middle of the night so that he could defeat Wolfe and the British.

[MolsonExport]

The French simply did not garrison enough military in Quebec to hold off the British for long (had it not been Wolfe, someone else at a later point). Moreover, they did not bring enough settlers over in time to occupy the vast space that they nominally controlled.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's worth noting that "giving land to Quebec" = "assigning land to the British-controlled province of Quebec".

Quebec was "theirs", so it wasn't giving lebensraum land to the French or Canadiens.

It was a military and administrative decision to organize the land it was left with in North America.

Not really a plum to francophones (or Indigenous people for that matter).

The British did start abolishing the seigneurial system. So, tenants did eventually get title to their lands.

Like I said before, It was not necessarily out of any real 'let's give the land back to the people' feel-good thing, but practical reality.

I'm not condoning the British colonial position in North America of the time, but I won't condemn them as completely evil when they were a lot more brutal with some of their other historical colonies. Ireland was much worse in the 1840s under British rule.

Mostly, the British wanted a pacified population that demanded little and acted as a bulwark against the Americans. Was it the worst deal? Nah. Was it the best? Probably not.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Acajack

...the British Crown attempted an ethnic cleansing and genocide of my forebears...

Originally Posted by Acajack

Genocide doesn't necessarily involve violently killing everyone BTW.

Look who's getting "woketarian" all of a sudden

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The British did start abolishing the seigneurial system. So, tenants did eventually get title to their lands.

Like I said before, It was not necessarily out of any real 'let's give the land back to the people' feel-good thing, but practical reality.

I'm not condoning the British colonial position in North America of the time, but I won't condemn them as completely evil when they were a lot more brutal with some of their other historical colonies. Ireland was much worse in the 1840s under British rule.

Mostly, the British wanted a pacified population that demanded little and acted as a bulwark against the Americans. Was it the worst deal? Nah. Was it the best? Probably not.

As has been mentioned in the thread, the British Quebec Act of 1774 that was perceived as giving goodies to the French in Canada contributed to the anger that triggered the American Revolution. But the reason the British gave the goodies that they did was because they didn't want two rebellions on their hands at the same time, or the Canadiens to ally with the Americans against them.

Strategy again.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dleung

Look who's getting "woketarian" all of a sudden

I've been warning you that I would.

In keeping with the spirit of the times, though, I am only applying the principles to my own in-group!

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The French simply did not garrison enough military in Quebec to hold off the British for long (had it not been Wolfe, someone else at a later point). Moreover, they did not bring enough settlers over in time to occupy the vast space that they nominally controlled.

And in the end decided that Guadeloupe was worth more than Quebec.

Sugar >> beaver pelts

Originally Posted by thewave46

Mostly, the British wanted a pacified population that demanded little and acted as a bulwark against the Americans. Was it the worst deal? Nah. Was it the best? Probably not.

Better than anything the Yanks would have given them.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And in the end decided that Guadeloupe was worth more than Quebec.

Sugar >> beaver pelts

Martinique actually.

Captured By Brigadier General Robert Monckton BTW

Canada was nothing more than a few acres of snow after all (so said Voltaire).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Better than anything the Yanks would have given them.

My ancestors were so lucky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVSgXy9KQ1s

Well, that critical backward glance at history was short-lived, wasn't it.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

My ancestors were so lucky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVSgXy9KQ1s

Well, that critical backward glance at history was short-lived, wasn't it.

As much as anybody was 'lucky' in those days when on the wrong side of things.

Admittedly, my existence is owed to some unluckiness. It's not like the Scots cleared off the Highlands exactly won a great concession prize from the British, but they did get sent here.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

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

Thinking about this more, would you then disagree that residential schools were "genocide"?

[jigglysquishy]

Genocide isn't just about what happened butwhen it happened. Standards have changed so drastically over time that something that was considered normal in 1850 was considered harsh in 1900, barbaric in 1950, and genocide in 2000.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Genocide isn't just about what happened butwhen it happened. Standards have changed so drastically over time that something that was considered normal in 1850 was considered harsh in 1900, barbaric in 1950, and genocide in 2000.

The slope is even steeper than you allude to.

The Brits originated the idea of the "concentration camp" during the Boer War in response to the Boers conducting guerilla warfare and subsequently hiding within the general Boer population.

The Armenian genocide in the First World War (a true genocide by any measure) did not generate much press at the time, and still is not acknowledged by the Turkish government.

True genocide as practiced by the Nazis against the Jews of Europe as well as gypsies and other "undesirables" during the Second World War is what began to tip the balance.

It really wasn't until the new millennium that the definition of "genocide" began to be defined exponentially more broadly. I think you can use the term more broadly if you qualify it (ie - cultural genocide or linguistic genocide) but, by some measures, if I get rid of an anthill in my backyard, that could also be considered an act of genocide, which is ridiculous.

Genocide is a very potent word. If you define it too broadly, then it begins to lose it's potency and meaning.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Genocide isn't just about what happened butwhen it happened. Standards have changed so drastically over time that something that was considered normal in 1850 was considered harsh in 1900, barbaric in 1950, and genocide in 2000.

I can appreciate that but my question still remains. Respectfully.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I can appreciate that but my question still remains. Respectfully.

By the standards of the time, they did not start as genocide but became genocide.

Using schools to forcefully assimilate the population was the de factor standard in the late 19th and early 20th century. Whether with Britain with the Irish, Germans with the Poles, Russians with the Lithuanians, Canadians with the indigenous peoples, French with the Occitans, Italians with South Italians, Austrians with the Croats, or about two dozen other examples.

In 1870, it was the only way. In 1910, it was being fought against by natives peoples worldwide, by 1920 it was considered inappropriate, and by 1960 was considered genocide.

[MolsonExport]

French with the Occitans

Indeed. It wasn't that long ago that you could find people living in the Pays d'Oc who would tell stories about being beaten by school teachers or by authorities for speaking their native Auvergnat, or Gascon, or Occitan, Languedocien, Limousin, Provençal, etc.

It wasn't that long ago that the Spanish have behaved similarly to their regional dialects.