[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Oexmelin]

West, to me, used to mean anything West of Ontario, but it was a label for movement more than for identity, i.e., people moving West, relocating West, etc. "The" West, to me, is a newer label and does tend to exclude BC.

[Valmy]

"The West" is obviously BC through Manitoba.

The more interesting question is whether "the west" includes Yukon and NWT (since they are obviously in the western half of the country), or whether they are their own separate thing called "the north" (together with Nunavut).

I know in the US the 'Northwest' strikes me as something very different from 'The West'. Likewise Alaska is its own thing.

I have no idea what people think of places like Montana, Idaho, or the Dakotas. Very obscure and low populated places seems to me.

[PRC]

"The West" is obviously BC through Manitoba.

The more interesting question is whether "the west" includes Yukon and NWT (since they are obviously in the western half of the country), or whether they are their own separate thing called "the north" (together with Nunavut).

I don't think people in BC think it's that obvious.  My friends & family there would not want to be lumped in with Alberta or anyone else.  Maybe that's a Victoria / Vancouver / lower mainland thing as opposed to the rest of BC though.

[Malthus]

My point is that Quebec is quite different from other places in Canada ... and other places in Canada are, as well, different from each other.

It all depends on one's perspective. People in Quebec insist on their uniqueness, and that is fine, but what is not fine is when they assume - quite wrongly - that everywhere else in Canada shares a fundamental similarity: that BC is in some profound sense 'the same as' Newfoundland or Nunavut.

That, as Valmy has pointed out, is astonishingly trivial. The point is not whether or not Quebec is a unique snowflake - even though that is always how you, and many others, want to read it - and thereby it is a point that will always have to be fought. In any other political setting, what I am saying would equally be trivial: that language creates, reinforces, and reflects cultural differences that cannot be easily bridged by translation, and conversely, that it creates, reinforces,and reflects cultural similarities that form a political forum. Only in Canada would it be contested so fiercely. Obviously, moving from Newfoundland to Alberta would make differences stand out, but so would be moving from an urban setting to a rural one, from farming to lawyering, from wealth to poverty. I thought this would be a given. My point was that switching from a language-specific political forum to another creates distinctions that are not captured by those other switches. It was an attempt at explaining why Quebec's political brokers become national political figures whereas otherwise ave a harder time breaking into Quebec's political scene.

So, if language and culture are the criteria - then Nunavut, and native Canadians generally, are more "different" from the "Canadian norm" than Quebec. After all, Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun are a lot more "different" than French and English, right? And the experience of Native Canadians differs fundamentally to that of 'English' or 'French' Canadians, no matter what language they speak.

As for why politicians from Quebec are favored by the Canadian political landscape - that is easy: they have the power to demand it, and have. Native Canadians lack that power - they have neither the numbers nor the leverage. They have a unique legal status, but question whether that uniqueness has been an advantage.

[Valmy]

So, if language and culture are the criteria - then Nunavut, and native Canadians generally, are more "different" from the "Canadian norm" than Quebec. After all, Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun are a lot more "different" than French and English, right? And the experience of Native Canadians differs fundamentally to that of 'English' or 'French' Canadians, no matter what language they speak.

Oh come now Malthus.

As for why politicians from Quebec are favored by the Canadian political landscape - that is easy: they have the power to demand it, and have. Native Canadians lack that power - they have neither the numbers nor the leverage. They have a unique legal status, but question whether that uniqueness has been an advantage.

Sure? I guess? What is your point? We have indigenous pseudo-nations here in the US as well.

But Oexmelin did not even discuss them so why are they being used as a hammer to attack his point? You cannot honestly suspect that Oexmilon, a historian of American history, has some kind of contempt or lack of understanding of first nation cultures? Studying them has been part of his career.

[crazy canuck]

Having been born and raised on Vancouver Island I always considered the West as just BC.  I thought of Alberta, Saskatchewan & Manitoba as the Prairie provinces and Ontario and points East as "Back East".   But being with a partner from Ontario she always considered the West as "Anything West of Ontario".

Now that I live in Alberta my impression is that Albertan's consider "the West" as Alberta alone.  Saskatchewan and Manitoba as the prairie provinces and BC as something else altogether.

I share your view.  BC is the Coast.  Alberta  is the West. 

[viper37]

I've read several articles about the NDP's Leap Manifesto - and it's stupidity is just breathtaking.

In French, it's "Un grand bond vers l'avant".  While in French, Mao's Great Leap forward was "Un grand bond en avant"...

I think the similarity is not a coincidence.

[crazy canuck]

I've read several articles about the NDP's Leap Manifesto - and it's stupidity is just breathtaking.

In French, it's "Un grand bon vers l'avant".  While in French, Mao's Great Leap forward was "Un grand bon en avant"...

I think the similarity is not a coincidence.

That is a very interesting insight.  In both languages they make a communist reference. 

[garbon]

Let us not forget that the first Anglos were in fact Americans who refused to join the revolution and moved north.

What relevance could that possible have on what English speaking Canadians are like today?

[Valmy]

Let us not forget that the first Anglos were in fact Americans who refused to join the revolution and moved north.

What relevance could that possible have on what English speaking Canadians are like today?

Did you know the first English speaking Americans were in fact British people who moved west? I mean...wow.

[viper37]

So, if language and culture are the criteria - then Nunavut, and native Canadians generally, are more "different" from the "Canadian norm" than Quebec. After all, Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun are a lot more "different" than French and English, right? And the experience of Native Canadians differs fundamentally to that of 'English' or 'French' Canadians, no matter what language they speak.

Still not getting it

[garbon]

Let us not forget that the first Anglos were in fact Americans who refused to join the revolution and moved north.

What relevance could that possible have on what English speaking Canadians are like today?

Did you know the first English speaking Americans were in fact British people who moved west? I mean...wow.

Lies!!!

[Barrister]

"The West" is obviously BC through Manitoba.

The more interesting question is whether "the west" includes Yukon and NWT (since they are obviously in the western half of the country), or whether they are their own separate thing called "the north" (together with Nunavut).

I don't think people in BC think it's that obvious.  My friends & family there would not want to be lumped in with Alberta or anyone else.  Maybe that's a Victoria / Vancouver / lower mainland thing as opposed to the rest of BC though.

It's funny you think Victoria / Vancouver is "the West" though.  Whitehorse is further west than both of those cities.

[Valmy]

It's funny you think Victoria / Vancouver is "the West" though.  Whitehorse is further west than both of those cities.

Parts of Alaska are so west they are east

[viper37]

and many insist on having special unique status.

still don't get it

Again, more power than we have now.  Not unique power that no one has or ever will have.

Newfoundland is happy with things the way they are.
Nova Scotia is happy with things the way they are.
Prince Edward Island is happy with things the way they are.
New Brunswick is happy with things the way they are.
Quebec is not happy with things the way they are.
Ontario is happy with things the way they are.
Manitoba is happy with things the way they are.
Saskatchewan is happy with things the way they are.
Alberta is happy with things the way they are.
British Columbia is happy with things the way they are.
The Territories don't count, because they are territories, not because I don't care about who lives there, but they ain't provinces so their relations with the Federal authority is different.

That is why when we talk about Quebec - Canada relations there is Quebec vs The rest of Canada.  Not because Canada is a monolithic block filled with identical people each with identical worries from coast to coast but because only Quebec is disatisfied with the current power sharing scheme.  Many Quebecers feel the Federal government prevents the long term sustainability and growth of the only French province in this country.  Given history, and given the attitude of Trudeau&co, I can not fault them for that.

The current attitude in Canada is that Quebec should get no "special rights".  Ok, but why are they "special rights"?  Because you don't want them, because you feel you don't need them.  Fair enough.  A particular Canadian may feel he does not need the right to freewill marriage, his family tradition is for arranged marriage and that's perfectly fine for him.  Should we remove that special right from people who want it?
If one Chinese canadian feels democracy is worthless and he does not need the right to vote, should we remove that special right from everyone else?

It does not make sense.

But that is what the other provinces, in a monolithic block are saying: "We do not want anymore rights, therefore you should not have any".

It's a silly way to govern a country.