British citizen creates national uproar in Quebec

[Grallon]

As a non-Canadian, I literally do not understand this idea - at all. If the Qebecois do not consider themselves part of Canada, why don't they simply leave - doesn't the Canadian constitution allow for that?

No the canadian constitution doesn't allow explicitly for secession,  Although, and ironically, it's the federal government, in the wake of the 2 referenda on the question, that legitimized such a position by asking the supreme court to express its opinion on the so-called 'Clarity Bill' voted after the '95 referendum.  And the supreme justices were of the opinion that should Quebec, or any other province/territory, meet the requirements stated in the bill (clear question, significant percentage (60%) in favor, possibly other  things - I haven't the text handy), then the federal state would be under the obligation to negotiate a settlement.

As for why a majority has rejected twice the chance to leave the federation... There are multiple reasons and it's probably a combination of those.  The fact that as a people we represent only 2-3% of the total population of North America; the fact that as member of this federation we benefit from it; the fact that we are the original canadians (before there were any anglophones around); the fact we would experience a temporary decrease in our living conditions (nothing apocalyptic contrary to the opposite camp's propaganda, but significant nonetheless); the fact we often feel insecure collectively thanks to our history...  As you can see, a jumble of reasons/emotions that Oex can express at lenght and more eloquently than I take the time to do now.

I am having some trouble understanding this idea that the Quebecois are some kind of oppressed minority in Canada of all places.

When I used the word denial I didn't mean opression; though our history is littered with...  not outright/active oppression as much as a succession of slights that piled up until the first independantist movements appeared in 1960.  In the wake of the decolonization elsewhere at the time, and our own little internal revolution in the 60s, the secessionist idea gained momentum and culminated in the referenda of 80 and 95. 

The fact that these attempts were inconclusive doens't mean all is well, but many anglo-canadians have this tendency of being annoyed whenever quebecers voice criticisms or grievances.  You can witness it in this very thread and others about internal canadian issues.  You'll often hear them saying we are nothing but whinny crybabies.  That in itself is demonstration of the denial I mentioned. 

What you need to understand is that a great many anglo-canadians beleive the propaganda stating that Canada is one nation composed of many cultural groups (the canadian version of multiculturalism, itself is part of the nation building effort of the central state).  Thus there is no room in that ideology for admitting the existance of an associated nation in the federation.  Or else, when the admission is made, it's to bring down quebecers to the level of the so-called 'first nations'...  You can see, in that light, why  our excellent neighboors get irritated by what they perceive as their country kowtowing to the demands of one of its many minorites.

The thing is, we quebecers, while attached to Canada, view ourselves, by and large, not as a minority, but as a majority.  We have perceived ourselves as such since before the conquest and the arrival of british subjects here.  In fact you can find comments about this phenomenon in XVIIth century texts made by jesuit priests and french colonial administrators.  We have a territory, a history, institutions, customs and a language that validate this sentiment.  So you can understand why being repeatedly told we're canadians like any others and as such shouldn't expect 'favor treatments' can be somewhat alienating.

Basically they are of the opinion the 'national' government should not cater to the 'whims' of a minority - while we are of the opinion the 'federal' government (since our national govt is based in Quebec City) should consider the wishes of an associated nation.

As you can see, there's no agreement on the basic concepts underlying this country.  However since the anglos have greater numerical numbers, it creates the illusion that their definition is the correct one. 

Do you understand the idea of denial I was refering to now?




G.

[Zoupa]

Even if it is not true (and honestly, I have no idea) there is certainly the perception that it is true. For example, I would never visit Quebec because of that perception - if I was visiting Canada, there are lots of places that seem just as nice where I won't have to run the risk of dealing with some spaz who is going to act like an ass because I don't speak French.

So you would specifically choose not to travel to a place because there is a "perception" that people might be rude or because there is some risk someone might be rude?  On that basis, how could you visit anyplace?  In my experience, people are capable of being a "spaz" and acting like an ass in any language.

Certainly languish is proof that English speakers are not immune.   

Wasn't my post rather clear that I was choosing to go somewhere else due to the fact that "somewhere else" does not share the same perception that there is THIS particular problem?

Sure, if Quebec had some awesomely great reason to visit that trumped this (compared to other options), then I would go - but I don't know that it does, so why deal with the problem if there is no good reason to do so?

All other things being equal, why choose the place with the perception that they are going to be asshole unless I speak, or pretend to try to speak, a language I do not speak?

I guess I might go if I got to travel enough that I went and saw the other places I wanted to see already, but since that is not the case...the odds of Quebec ever making it to the top of my destination list are considerably reduced.

Oh noes.

[Zoupa]

I am having some trouble understanding this idea that the Quebecois are some kind of oppressed minority in Canada of all places.

You've never been told to speak white.

That was in the 1990s. I wanted to kill the old fuck.

I voted yes instead 

[Berkut]

I am having some trouble understanding this idea that the Quebecois are some kind of oppressed minority in Canada of all places.

You've never been told to speak white.

That was in the 1990s. I wanted to kill the old fuck.

I voted yes instead 

That does sound terrible. Your emoangst is understandable.

[Berkut]

Do you understand the idea of denial I was refering to now?

G.

I guess - however, now that I understand the basis much better, I find I am even less impressed by the legitimacy of the complaint than I was when I was largely ignorant about it's basis.

But I appreciate the explanation.

[Grallon]

I guess - however, now that I understand the basis much better, I find I am even less impressed by the legitimacy of the complaint than I was when I was largely ignorant about it's basis.

But I appreciate the explanation.

*shrug* Whether or not you approve of the arguments is not terribly relevant since it concerns those directly involved.  But you asked a question and I tried responding in earnest.




G.

[Berkut]

I guess - however, now that I understand the basis much better, I find I am even less impressed by the legitimacy of the complaint than I was when I was largely ignorant about it's basis.

But I appreciate the explanation.

*shrug* Whether or not you approve of the arguments is not terribly relevant since it concerns those directly involved.  But you asked a question and I tried responding in earnest.




G.

And I appreciate that you did so.

[Malthus]

Then I stand corrected.  There must be tons of businesses advertizing only in Arabic?
And I suppose it's the norm in many parts of Israel when you don't get a job if you don't speak Arabic, and where you're denied services because you don't speak Arabic?

Yes in fact - many parts of Israel are ethnically divided, because their problems with ethnicity are an order of magnitude or two worse than those of Canada.

There was a common saying in Montreal, once upon a time, that was "Speak white or leave".  Meaning, speak english or go away.
Imagine a Israeli citizen walking in Jerusalem, and asking a question to a merchant in Yiddish.  He's then told to speak the language of the Prophet or go away.
And to most places you go in Jerusalem, that would be the same thing.

That was Montreal in the 1950s.

The language laws are sometimes strict, and way too bureaucratic, and I'd love nothing more than some flexibility to it.
But removing them completely is akin to surrender.

Speak Yiddish these days in Israel, you would be lucky to find anyone under say the age of 60 who understands a word you say. 

Jews largely abandoned that language (though I believe it is having a bit of a revival) in favour of Hebrew, for a variety of reasons but most particularly because it was associated with Europe.

[viper37]

Speak Yiddish these days in Israel, you would be lucky to find anyone under say the age of 60 who understands a word you say. 

Jews largely abandoned that language (though I believe it is having a bit of a revival) in favour of Hebrew, for a variety of reasons but most particularly because it was associated with Europe.

I tought it was the opposite, Hebrew being the old language nobody really spoke anymore.  I stand corrected.

Btw, is that true that French is kind of the 3rd language spoken in Israel?

[Malthus]

Do you understand the idea of denial I was refering to now?

G.

I guess - however, now that I understand the basis much better, I find I am even less impressed by the legitimacy of the complaint than I was when I was largely ignorant about it's basis.

But I appreciate the explanation.

It should also be pointed out that this explaination is largely incomprehensible to the majority of "anglo" Canadians, who are by no means the monolythic entity imagined by Quebec nationalists. A child of some Hong Kong immigrant isn't going to make heads or tails of the argument that they are an ethno-lingusitic oppressor in denial of some group hundreds of miles away whom they have never interacted with.

[viper37]

Yes in fact - many parts of Israel are ethnically divided, because their problems with ethnicity are an order of magnitude or two worse than those of Canada.

oh, you don't say?  People are blowing themselves up in the street and that's because the problems are an order of magnitude or two worse than those of Canada?  I would never have guessed that!


My example of Israel is because it's kinda surrounded by an alien culture, like Quebec, and they too have ways to protect their cultural identity.  So I guess if Quebec is a xenophobic or racist state for protecting it's language and culture, so is Israel in its own way.  So is any state with any kind of measure aiming to protect its language/culture/identity.

[Malthus]

Speak Yiddish these days in Israel, you would be lucky to find anyone under say the age of 60 who understands a word you say. 

Jews largely abandoned that language (though I believe it is having a bit of a revival) in favour of Hebrew, for a variety of reasons but most particularly because it was associated with Europe.

I tought it was the opposite, Hebrew being the old language nobody really spoke anymore.  I stand corrected.

Btw, is that true that French is kind of the 3rd language spoken in Israel?

Not to my knowledge, no. Most Israelis know at least some English, and Russian is widely spoken; not sure about French.

The history of Hebrew is indeed an interesting one, as it was a dead "liturgical language" much like Latin today (that is, studied for holy writ but not actually spoken) which was deliberately revived for the nationalist project - and out of an abiding dislike for all things European (associated with centuries of oppression and, eventually, genocide).  Yiddish was considered if you like a "ghetto language" unsuitable for the modern world.

I have no idea whether there exists any sort of laws mandating Hebrew on signs or the like. I suspect not, though.

[Berkut]

Do you understand the idea of denial I was refering to now?

G.

I guess - however, now that I understand the basis much better, I find I am even less impressed by the legitimacy of the complaint than I was when I was largely ignorant about it's basis.

But I appreciate the explanation.

It should also be pointed out that this explaination is largely incomprehensible to the majority of "anglo" Canadians, who are by no means the monolythic entity imagined by Quebec nationalists. A child of some Hong Kong immigrant isn't going to make heads or tails of the argument that they are an ethno-lingusitic oppressor in denial of some group hundreds of miles away whom they have never interacted with.

I am still wrapping my head around the idea that this opression is almost compeltely a figment of pride and some kind of bizarre emotional angst over the fact that the French lost a war a few hundred years ago.

How can any Europeans in America cling to the idea that their "culture" has some kind of historical legitmacy over some other culture based on the idea that they were there first? Doesn't that raise some rather pointed responses from the people who really WERE there first? I thought the comment about them being insulted by being treated the same as "first nations" rather interesting, since it betrays their own prejudice towards them - after all, you can only be insulted by being compared to them if in fact they are somehow less valuable.

Anyway, the entire thing just looks ludicrous from here. Perhaps it would not if I were closer to it. But being pissed off because ATC is not in French? Seriously?

[Berkut]

My example of Israel is because it's kinda surrounded by an alien culture, like Quebec,

Other than the language, what is so alien about Canadian culture?

[Valmy]

Perhaps it would not if I were closer to it.

Um....don't you live pretty close to Quebec?