How many people in Quebec are like Viper and Grallon?

[Razgovory]

One would imagine patriotism is something American would understand - maybe not cave rats like Raz but the others should be able to grasp the concept.

Ethnic nationalism is a fringe concept in the US.

there's no practical difference between american patriotism and quebec nationalism.  Quebec nationalism isn't "ethnic" by nature, more cultural and territorial.  I'd say it's inclusive, but for those to who it's an insult to be called Québécois.

You can adapt to a culture.  You can learn a language.  You can be a part of a society.  Or you can make the willing choice of living apart.  Like the Shafia family did, never accepting their daughters tolerance of occidental culture.  But it's a choice you make. 

However, when it comes to ethnic nationalism, such as practiced by KKK and other racist groups, you can't chose to be of another skin color or ethnic background.

If some people can not see the difference between Quebec nationalists and KKK, I can not do anything for you.  I am not the one to cure blindness, especially when it is voluntary.

I'm an American, and fairly patriotic, and I don't feel insulted when my countrymen speak Spanish or French so clearly there is a difference.

[Fireblade]

A better question would be: How many people from Alberta are like Neil and BB?

Also, upthread when people were talking about Zoupa: Can you really say a nigga from Orleans represents Quebec? That's like taking a typical English, dropping him in Mississippi, and asking him his opinions on "dusky" people.

[Barrister]

A better question would be: How many people from Alberta are like Neil and BB?

Also, upthread when people were talking about Zoupa: Can you really say a nigga from Orleans represents Quebec? That's like taking a typical English, dropping him in Mississippi, and asking him his opinions on "dusky" people.

Neil is definitely one of a kind.

[Grallon]

I'm an American, and fairly patriotic, and I don't feel insulted when my countrymen speak Spanish or French so clearly there is a difference.

And nobody was talking about patriotism towards Canada you moron. 


-----

Well at least Viper is beginning to talk about willful blindness... so perhaps he's beginning to understand what myself and others have understood a long time ago.



G.

[Razgovory]

I'm an American, and fairly patriotic, and I don't feel insulted when my countrymen speak Spanish or French so clearly there is a difference.

And nobody was talking about patriotism towards Canada you moron. 


-----

Well at least Viper is beginning to talk about willful blindness... so perhaps he's beginning to understand what myself and others have understood a long time ago.



G.

I'm struggling to see the relevance here.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm struggling to see the relevance here.

Well, duh, it's a thread about Canada. 

[dps]

I'm an American, and fairly patriotic, and I don't feel insulted when my countrymen speak Spanish or French so clearly there is a difference.

And nobody was talking about patriotism towards Canada you moron. 

And that's where my comment about Jefferson Davis comes from.  The Civil War wasn't just about slavery (though obviously it was mostly about slavery);  it was also about whether a person's primary alligiance was to the state they were from, or to the U.S. as a whole.  Same thing here--is your primary alligiance to the province, or to Canada?  If the former, the Davis comparison is spot on.

[Grallon]

And that's where my comment about Jefferson Davis comes from.  The Civil War wasn't just about slavery (though obviously it was mostly about slavery);  it was also about whether a person's primary alligiance was to the state they were from, or to the U.S. as a whole.  Same thing here--is your primary allegiance to the province, or to Canada?  If the former, the Davis comparison is spot on.

Canada is the political construct (a federation) my country (socially, culturally, linguistically) is currently a member of.  Naturally my allegiance is first and foremost to Quebec, my own country.

You shouldn't confuse the United States with Canada.  With the former you have one country with subunits expressing regional variations on a number of topics; while with the latter you have 2 countries stuck in bed with each other by the vagaries of History; *and* by the fact that both are neighbors of the same giant...

One could almost say that being anti-Quebec is an affirmation of being Canadian (for them) since denying Quebec's national existence is like strengthening Canada's - particularly when facing the American giant.

Maddeningly there's a (rather large) number of our own people - such as Viper - who keep sitting on the fence - never choosing sides - thus generating the permanent feeling of frustration (felt by a majority of Quebecers - who do feel different) of never being strong enough to force the other 'bed partner' to acknowledge us as a separate entity.  It is a form of collective schizophrenia we have endured for a long time now.




G.

[Sophie Scholl]

I often wonder if the Brits regret the Quebec Act.

[dps]

And that's where my comment about Jefferson Davis comes from.  The Civil War wasn't just about slavery (though obviously it was mostly about slavery);  it was also about whether a person's primary alligiance was to the state they were from, or to the U.S. as a whole.  Same thing here--is your primary allegiance to the province, or to Canada?  If the former, the Davis comparison is spot on.

Canada is the political construct (a federation) my country (socially, culturally, linguistically) is currently a member of.  Naturally my allegiance is first and foremost to Quebec, my own country.

You shouldn't confuse the United States with Canada.  With the former you have one country with subunits expressing regional variations on a number of topics; while with the latter you have 2 countries stuck in bed with each other by the vagaries of History; *and* by the fact that both are neighbors of the same giant...

It's not confusion on my part--it was the historical position of a great many southerners in 1860-61.  Men like Robert E. Lee would have said that the U.S. was a construct (after all, it was founded by 13 separate colonies joining together) and that he was a Virginian, moreso than an American.

[Grallon]

It's not confusion on my part--it was the historical position of a great many southerners in 1860-61.  Men like Robert E. Lee would have said that the U.S. was a construct (after all, it was founded by 13 separate colonies joining together) and that he was a Virginian, moreso than an American.

Yet, they were all speaking the same language, they all shared the same origins and the same common founding myth (the revolution).  The gulf between them was not fundamental - it was merely ideological - and thus circumscribed.

Interestingly, it is quite telling of the differences between Americans and Canadians that you guys went to war over ' relative trivialities' while we didn't over much more profound issues.



G.

[viper37]

I often wonder if the Brits regret the Quebec Act.

Certainly.  That's why they had Lord Durham, investigate the situation, conclude French Canadians were inferior, and then proclaim the Act of Union because the best thing that could happen to us would be to assimilate to the British culture:

Recommendations Durham recommended that Upper and Lower Canada be united into one province. He also encouraged immigration to Canada from Britain, to overwhelm the existing numbers of French Canadians with the hope of assimilating them into British culture.^[1] The freedoms granted to the French Canadians under the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 should also be rescinded; according to Lord Durham this would eliminate the possibility of future rebellions. The French Canadians did not necessarily have to give up their religion and language entirely, but their culture could not be protected at the expense of what Durham considered a more progressive British culture.
The proposed merger would also benefit Upper Canada as the construction of canals led to a considerable debt load; while access to the former Lower Canada fiscal surplus would allow that debt to be erased. He also recommended responsible government, in which the governor general would be a figurehead and the legislative assembly would hold a great deal of power. In the responsible government, the legislative assembly would be elected by the people. The party with majority would hold power and as long as they held support, they would keep power. However, this recommendation was not accepted and the Province of Canada would not get responsible government for another decade.

And the Act of Union itself

[viper37]

Interestingly, it is quite telling of the differences between Americans and Canadians that you guys went to war over ' relative trivialities' while we didn't over much more profound issues.

Prior to 1860, the army was heavily decentralized, each State already had its own militia and its own regiments even if technically under the Feds responsibility.  We did not have an army here, nor did we have any permanent militia.  There was no real military tradition in Canada, except for the British soldiers&officers who would emigrate here. 

And to avoid anything american, they made sure the officers were english.  The Vandoos only exists since 1922.  By then, there weren't any chances of rebellion.

[Razgovory]

Certainly.  That's why they had Lord Durham, investigate the situation, conclude French Canadians were inferior, and then proclaim the Act of Union because the best thing that could happen to us would be to assimilate to the British culture:

The French came to that conclusion as well.

[Fireblade]

America is ready to take on the White Man's Burden by relieving our northern brothers of their troublesome Quebec province. I guarantee that within a generation, we will breed out the frog and turn them into overweight, under-educated working-class drones.