Canada to firmly re-assess its status as a British colony

[Valmy]

Maybe another way to look at it is the "global culture" of which you speak is a culture in which we can all have access to what we like without being restricted by the fact that the good or service is being provided a great distrance away.  Since we all have difference likes how could this create a generic future?

Is Canada generic just because there exists a 'Canadian' culture?  I did not mean to imply this was some sort of horrible thing.  Why is it bad we would have a global cultural reference?  I mean yes things would be different and better in some ways and worse in others but that is how things go.  Cultures change to reflect new realities.  Having globalized communications and so forth will create something new.  To me this points to a new global culture not that we all become identical members of the collective.

[crazy canuck]

Is Canada generic just because there exists a 'Canadian' culture?  I did not mean to imply this was some sort of horrible thing.  Why is it bad we would have a global cultural reference?

I dont understand your question.  I am not sure such a thing as "Canadian" culture exists. I think there is a Canadian identity but the culture of Canada is very diverse and at the very least varies among regions.  Just as it does in the US.

And yes, I would hate to live in a world that had a monolithic culture.

[HVC]

That is certainly not my experience.  I am not sure what you mean by "generic versions".

'Chinese food' 'Mexican Food' 'Indian Food'.

I bet there are dramatic regional variations of these but there is one specific version that gets spread out over the world.

Having Chinese food in Portugal was a weird experience. it looked the same as our fake stuff but was way saltier. I spoke to the owner (friend of my uncle) and he said that when he lived in Canada he had a restaurant here and had to make the food sweeter. When he moved to Portugal he had to make the food saltier (pork chops really like their salt). Just a weird thing you never think about. Regional preferences are a funny thing.

[Valmy]

I dont understand your question.  I am not sure such a thing as "Canadian" culture exists. I think there is a Canadian identity but the culture of Canada is very diverse and at the very least varies among regions.  Just as it does in the US.

And yes, I would hate to live in a world that had a monolithic culture.

Right and it would stay diverse to that extent.  But everybody in the US has common cultural references and it will be like that on a global level.  People will be able to move anywhere and be able to function but there will be little differences.  Heck you already get a little of this feel moving between first world nations. 

Why wouldn't it be like that with the mobility of people, ideas, and entertainment and so forth?

[Grallon]

What our non Canadian readers should understand is that no matter the method used, hysteria will always ensue in Canada when Quebec asserts its collective identity.  Why?  For the very simple reason that it implies the rejection, wholly or in part, of the Canadian 'national' narrative.  And I've postulated many times that Canada is built on the denial of its true nature - which is being a bi-national entity. 

And we all know that so long as something is denied there can be no real/objective appraisal of a given situation - nor can actual solutions be put into effect.



G.

[Oexmelin]

Right and it would stay diverse to that extent.  But everybody in the US has common cultural references and it will be like that on a global level.  People will be able to move anywhere and be able to function but there will be little differences.  Heck you already get a little of this feel moving between first world nations. 

A culture is not a series of exclusionary frontiers. It is a pattern of connecting links. No one here is arguing for the creation of cultural reserves, but for the capacity to shape the patterns and identify crucial knots. And language is one prime connector; I don't see why the market, or individual rights, needs to be the only legitimate ones. 

[HVC]

Maybe it's because I'm from a bilingual family (not French ) I never saw a distinction between two languages one country.

[crazy canuck]

What our non Canadian readers should understand is that no matter the method used, hysteria will always ensue in Canada when Quebec asserts its collective identity.  Why?  For the very simple reason that it implies the rejection, wholly or in part, of the Canadian 'national' narrative.  And I've postulated many times that Canada is built on the denial of its true nature - which is being a bi-national entity. 

And we all know that so long as something is denied there can be no real/objective appraisal of a given situation - nor can actual solutions be put into effect.



G.

I am pretty sure Oex and viper already undertand your point.  The thing you dont seem to get is the point Malthus is making that Quebec includes people who are not French speakers.  You are as guilty of creating a fiction as anyone you have acccused in this thread.

The only logical way out for you is to assert that only the Majority French speakers are Quebecers which makes Malthus' argument and concern much more compelling.

You and Oex provide a good counterbalance.  Whenever Oex is at his most reasonable you always come around to voice the most extreme version of your political movement.

[crazy canuck]

A culture is not a series of exclusionary frontiers. It is a pattern of connecting links. No one here is arguing for the creation of cultural reserves, but for the capacity to shape the patterns and identify crucial knots. And language is one prime connector; I don't see why the market, or individual rights, needs to be the only legitimate ones.

That was nicely put.

[Berkut]

Right and it would stay diverse to that extent.  But everybody in the US has common cultural references and it will be like that on a global level.  People will be able to move anywhere and be able to function but there will be little differences.  Heck you already get a little of this feel moving between first world nations. 

A culture is not a series of exclusionary frontiers. It is a pattern of connecting links. No one here is arguing for the creation of cultural reserves, but for the capacity to shape the patterns and identify crucial knots. And language is one prime connector; I don't see why the market, or individual rights, needs to be the only legitimate ones. 

I can understand your point, and largely agree with it.

I just personally do not think that "individual rights" are unimportant enough that they should be put aside in what looks to me like a futile effort to hold onto something that is doomed by the very culture it is supposed to be protecting.

[viper37]

Maybe it's because I'm from a bilingual family (not French ) I never saw a distinction between two languages one country.

the portuguese identity is diffused through Canada.  You haven't systematically been abused since 1763 (Royal Proclamation, Act of Union, Confederation, Louis Riel, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Ontario as english only provinces for the first 100years or so of the country, etc,).  All the stuff done to preserve the pure British identity of the country.  Renaming the army is just one step back toward this identity: the British colonial identity that Canada never really left.

I suspect the situation of the Portuguese people would be different if they were a province of Spain. Given the few Portuguese I know don't seem to have any lost love for Spaniards, things could be different after 250 years living under their rule and being treated like a spoiled child because you insist on speaking your language and asking for respect.

[viper37]

I just personally do not think that "individual rights" are unimportant enough that they should be put aside in what looks to me like a futile effort to hold onto something that is doomed by the very culture it is supposed to be protecting.

like the Canadian identity wich is simply Americans with a Royal fetish?

[Barrister]

Right and it would stay diverse to that extent.  But everybody in the US has common cultural references and it will be like that on a global level.  People will be able to move anywhere and be able to function but there will be little differences.  Heck you already get a little of this feel moving between first world nations. 

A culture is not a series of exclusionary frontiers. It is a pattern of connecting links. No one here is arguing for the creation of cultural reserves, but for the capacity to shape the patterns and identify crucial knots. And language is one prime connector; I don't see why the market, or individual rights, needs to be the only legitimate ones. 

I can understand your point, and largely agree with it.

I just personally do not think that "individual rights" are unimportant enough that they should be put aside in what looks to me like a futile effort to hold onto something that is doomed by the very culture it is supposed to be protecting.

That's only if you assume it is in fact futile.

From what I understand the state of the French language in Quebec has improved in leaps and bounds since the 70s.  French is less in danger now than it was before.

[Grallon]

...

The only logical way out for you is to assert that only the Majority French speakers are Quebecers which makes Malthus' argument and concern much more compelling.

...

It all depends on how you define what it is to be (insert national group of choice).  Some postulate a nation is nothing more than an aggregate of individuals living under a specific jurisdiction.  But a 'true' nation is more than that.  Malthus would call it tribalism.  It doesn't matter.  My point is that if you want to be a called/recognized/acknowledged as a 'national' - you have to adapt yourself to the mores, customs and norms defined/established/proclaimed by the majority.  Some people call that 'tyranny' - I call it common sense.  Otherwise you get a society that isn't organic - a car holding only by its coat of paint.  Bill 101 is merely one expression of this desire to maintain social cohesion.




G.

[crazy canuck]

My point is that if you want to be a called/recognized/acknowledged as a 'national' - you have to adapt yourself to the mores, customs and norms defined/established/proclaimed by the majority.  Some people call that 'tyranny' - I call it common sense. 


G.

I understood that to be your point.  And frankly if that is the view of all Separatists then you can count me a firm adversary of your cause as it raises the red flags Malthus has already mentioned.  But I am not entirely sure your view is the view of all Separatists.