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

[Oexmelin]

The best explanation that I can see is that many French-speaking Canadians are still in denial about the Plains of Abraham, much as many Americans in the south are still in denial about Appamattox.  With the big caveat that while I (unfortunately) get to view the latter close up,  I only glimse the former from a distance.

It's not a denial because the rest of Canadian history had not played the Plains of Abraham as a Conquest which was supposed to wipe out any remnant of identity or political autonomy that should have had the result of French Canadians bowing their heads in shame. It was emphatically not about saying "you lost": it was about saying "France lost, and it actually didn't like you. We, on the other hand, really like you." (This, for all sorts of historical reasons). Hence the recognition of the Catholic Church (a first in the British empire), of the civil laws, of French, the recognition of a strong political entity - the Province of Quebec - etc. Therefore arose the idea of Canada as a union of two people, and the strong ambiguity on the way the Plains of Abraham, and the Conquest need to be understood. 

[Valmy]

The best explanation that I can see is that many French-speaking Canadians are still in denial about the Plains of Abraham, much as many Americans in the south are still in denial about Appamattox.  With the big caveat that while I (unfortunately) get to view the latter close up,  I only glimse the former from a distance.

It's not a denial because the rest of Canadian history had not played the Plains of Abraham as a Conquest which was supposed to wipe out any remnant of identity or political autonomy that should have had the result of French Canadians bowing their heads in shame. It was emphatically not about saying "you lost": it was about saying "France lost, and it actually didn't like you. We, on the other hand, really like you." (This, for all sorts of historical reasons). Hence the recognition of the Catholic Church (a first in the British empire), of the civil laws, of French, the recognition of a strong political entity - the Province of Quebec - etc. Therefore arose the idea of Canada as a union of two people, and the strong ambiguity on the way the Plains of Abraham, and the Conquest need to be understood. 

Yeah that was my feeling.  You never have French Canadians having very warm feelings about France.  They were apathetic and a bit hostile to fighting in either World War to help France.  So angst over no longer being French because of the Seven Years War is probably not the source.

[Valmy]

The best explanation that I can see is that many French-speaking Canadians are still in denial about the Plains of Abraham, much as many Americans in the south are still in denial about Appamattox.  With the big caveat that while I (unfortunately) get to view the latter close up,  I only glimse the former from a distance.

I think it is bitterness about how they were treated in Canada in the more recent past.  It is hard to find a good comparison in America.  I mean we have African Americans and Native Americans but they do not correlate perfectly.  You almost have to look at ethnic minorities in Eurasia.  Like Poles who went through Russification or Romanians with Magyarization...but less so.

[viper37]

I think it is bitterness about how they were treated in Canada in the more recent past.  It is hard to find a good comparison in America.  I mean we have African Americans and Native Americans but they do not correlate perfectly.  You almost have to look at ethnic minorities in Eurasia.  Like Poles who went through Russification or Romanians with Magyarization...but less so.

It's a very good analysis, imho.

[Malthus]

The best explanation that I can see is that many French-speaking Canadians are still in denial about the Plains of Abraham, much as many Americans in the south are still in denial about Appamattox.  With the big caveat that while I (unfortunately) get to view the latter close up,  I only glimse the former from a distance.

I think it is bitterness about how they were treated in Canada in the more recent past.  It is hard to find a good comparison in America.  I mean we have African Americans and Native Americans but they do not correlate perfectly.  You almost have to look at ethnic minorities in Eurasia.  Like Poles who went through Russification or Romanians with Magyarization...but less so.

Yeah, but how was Quebec treated badly in the "recent past" - say, in our actual lifetimes? The perception at least is that Quebec gets consideration far above that granted other provinces, and they are hardly being "oppressed" by (for example) being handed equalization payments greater than all other provinces combined.

When the topic comes up, people from Quebec inevitable dredge up examples from the 19th century - see Viper's list upthread. The 19th century is not the "recent past".

A better view is that some people from Quebec have a sense of grievance fueled by *historical* injustices. They identify with those poor saps hanged by the Brits in the 1830s. This sense of historical injustice keeps them looking for present day examples of 'insults" and "humiliations" which are, practically speaking, not intended as such, or are extremely petty - like the guy finding a stewardess unable to serve him a 7-Up in French. When those in the RoC express hilarity or outrage over this hyper-sensitivity, that is further proof that they, the French speakers, are "hated", so the sense of grievance becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. 

[Valmy]

Yeah, but how was Quebec treated badly in the "recent past" - say, in our actual lifetimes?

I said more recent past not recent past.  As in more recent than 1759, I meant the 19th century.  Hence my references to other groups with 19th century greviences.

[Razgovory]

The best explanation that I can see is that many French-speaking Canadians are still in denial about the Plains of Abraham, much as many Americans in the south are still in denial about Appamattox.  With the big caveat that while I (unfortunately) get to view the latter close up,  I only glimse the former from a distance.

Some Southerners are, but they don't get special treatment because of it.  I'm wondering if a better example is African Americans and affirmative action.

[Oexmelin]

When the topic comes up, people from Quebec inevitable dredge up examples from the 19th century - see Viper's list upthread. The 19th century is not the "recent past".

I think it is partly the result of many things.

The first is that any national identity takes its root in the past, and makes the past very much alive, and part of the present. Witness the fuss around the "Founding Fathers", the original intent, the "States' rights", the Vendée, etc. Even the Canadians on Languish can't really escape taking up arms over "the meaning" of 1812.

The second is, indeed, a historical narrative of grievances which remain. In fact, part of the decline of the vindicativeness of the separatism movement, which you so celebrate, is because the people who do remember *contemporary* grievances - symbols of what was percieved as symptomatic of the Canada - Quebec relationship, begin to die. The hated bill 101 had done lots in that regard: it was easier to be angry at the public dominance of English when such dominance was manifest every day.

The third is the other general sense that for people to wish for their own country, they need to be oppressed and miserable. The material, economic conditions or legal oppression are considered more legitimate standards of evaluation than any sense of belonging or identity, relegated into the "irrational sentiment" category, and thereby disregarded.  This goes both ways. For the "independance" movements, it requires to prove that there are material, legal or political injustices to fight. For the "anti-independance" movements, it is used to demonstrate that independance is simply not necessary or illegitimate.

This is why Quebec's independance movement suffers some hiccups. From its begining, the PQ had tried to present independance simultaneously as a positive movement, and one aimed at fighting past injustices. The time for strong vindicativeness is past. The language laws, the rise of a francophone Quebec's middle class - and indeed, of Quebec entrepreneurship, has erased (or at least mellowed) the heritage of its past. The oppression rhetoric within the independance movement is dead or moribund, except when specific constitutional or political crisis arise. But the remaining part of the rhetoric is more difficult to sell. Especially in our age, when collective movements in general are frowned upon and discredited, and when the celebration of individual rights is used in quasi "end-of-history" rhetoric, and where material comfort is supposed to take precedence over any sort of ideal.

[crazy canuck]

Also I wonder how much the de-Trudeauization of Canada, if I can put it that way, has played a part.  Less interference with Provinces within their jurisdictions has essentially killed the kind of separatist movements we used to have in the West.  Has it had some effect in Quebec?

[Zoupa]

When the topic comes up, people from Quebec inevitable dredge up examples from the 19th century - see Viper's list upthread. The 19th century is not the "recent past".

I think it is partly the result of many things.

The first is that any national identity takes its root in the past, and makes the past very much alive, and part of the present. Witness the fuss around the "Founding Fathers", the original intent, the "States' rights", the Vendée, etc. Even the Canadians on Languish can't really escape taking up arms over "the meaning" of 1812.

The second is, indeed, a historical narrative of grievances which remain. In fact, part of the decline of the vindicativeness of the separatism movement, which you so celebrate, is because the people who do remember *contemporary* grievances - symbols of what was percieved as symptomatic of the Canada - Quebec relationship, begin to die. The hated bill 101 had done lots in that regard: it was easier to be angry at the public dominance of English when such dominance was manifest every day.

The third is the other general sense that for people to wish for their own country, they need to be oppressed and miserable. The material, economic conditions or legal oppression are considered more legitimate standards of evaluation than any sense of belonging or identity, relegated into the "irrational sentiment" category, and thereby disregarded.  This goes both ways. For the "independance" movements, it requires to prove that there are material, legal or political injustices to fight. For the "anti-independance" movements, it is used to demonstrate that independance is simply not necessary or illegitimate.

This is why Quebec's independance movement suffers some hiccups. From its begining, the PQ had tried to present independance simultaneously as a positive movement, and one aimed at fighting past injustices. The time for strong vindicativeness is past. The language laws, the rise of a francophone Quebec's middle class - and indeed, of Quebec entrepreneurship, has erased (or at least mellowed) the heritage of its past. The oppression rhetoric within the independance movement is dead or moribund, except when specific constitutional or political crisis arise. But the remaining part of the rhetoric is more difficult to sell. Especially in our age, when collective movements in general are frowned upon and discredited, and when the celebration of individual rights is used in quasi "end-of-history" rhetoric, and where material comfort is supposed to take precedence over any sort of ideal.

Putain de bordel de merde, ca c'est bien dit.

[Valmy]

Putain de bordel de merde, ca c'est bien dit.

[Berkut]

when the celebration of individual rights is used in quasi "end-of-history" rhetoric, and where material comfort is supposed to take precedence over any sort of ideal.

Great post, up until about here.

I find the casual disparagement of "individual rights" while in the same sentence lamenting the lack of relevance of "ideals" in favor of material comfort rather...interesting.

Isn't respect for individual rights an ideal? I would argue it is a rather important one, much moreso than a more nevulously defined (even undefined) set of other ideals that appear to only be relevant in that they ought to be more important than "material comfort".

Personally, material comfort is pretty important to me. It strikes me as rather odd that your hierarchy appears to

Undefined ideals having to do with French language/culture > individual rights >< material comfort?

[viper37]

You are missing his point. He's questioning that "you" are old enough to have personally experoienced any of this.

Most African-American of my age have not known the era where they had to sit at the back of the bus of use seperate bathroom.  It must been it never existed and racism is long dead...
Just like feminism.  Since woman have essentially achived equal status to men, why the heck bother with laws stating they're equal and actually enforcing it?  If a company doesn't want to hire women or blacks, it should be their right, no?  Otherwise, it would be the minority trampling the rights of the majority.

As for equalization payments, Quebec gets more than all other provoinces combined.

True, but I was talking about fiscal imbalance. Two different things.
You know, like taking the money from the taxes but not giving it back to the provinces?
Who's to say the next government won't try that again?  There's nothing to prevent it.  Any Liberal or NDP government could decide provinces don't deserve their money.

I won't go through the rest pof your list - suffice it to say that the older the point, the more resonable a grievance it is; the recent ones are all either extremely petty or misstated, or both.

Yes of course...  An English speaking Quebecer is forced to *gasp* put a sign in French, this is horrible discrimination.  Trying to erase the French identity of this country however is "petty".
It's like all those Jews complaining about anti-semitism, what with burnt Synagogues and vandalized cemeteraries.  Their grievances are petty or missstated.

[Malthus]

I think it is partly the result of many things.

The first is that any national identity takes its root in the past, and makes the past very much alive, and part of the present. Witness the fuss around the "Founding Fathers", the original intent, the "States' rights", the Vendée, etc. Even the Canadians on Languish can't really escape taking up arms over "the meaning" of 1812.

Fair enough, but a matter of emphasis. If Canadian posters spent a significant amount of time lamenting the outcome of the war of 1812, and saw everything Americans did in light of the war of 1812, they would encounter a certain amount of 'please get over it now' too.

The second is, indeed, a historical narrative of grievances which remain. In fact, part of the decline of the vindicativeness of the separatism movement, which you so celebrate, is because the people who do remember *contemporary* grievances - symbols of what was percieved as symptomatic of the Canada - Quebec relationship, begin to die. The hated bill 101 had done lots in that regard: it was easier to be angry at the public dominance of English when such dominance was manifest every day.

The third is the other general sense that for people to wish for their own country, they need to be oppressed and miserable. The material, economic conditions or legal oppression are considered more legitimate standards of evaluation than any sense of belonging or identity, relegated into the "irrational sentiment" category, and thereby disregarded.  This goes both ways. For the "independance" movements, it requires to prove that there are material, legal or political injustices to fight. For the "anti-independance" movements, it is used to demonstrate that independance is simply not necessary or illegitimate.

This is why Quebec's independance movement suffers some hiccups. From its begining, the PQ had tried to present independance simultaneously as a positive movement, and one aimed at fighting past injustices. The time for strong vindicativeness is past. The language laws, the rise of a francophone Quebec's middle class - and indeed, of Quebec entrepreneurship, has erased (or at least mellowed) the heritage of its past. The oppression rhetoric within the independance movement is dead or moribund, except when specific constitutional or political crisis arise. But the remaining part of the rhetoric is more difficult to sell. Especially in our age, when collective movements in general are frowned upon and discredited, and when the celebration of individual rights is used in quasi "end-of-history" rhetoric, and where material comfort is supposed to take precedence over any sort of ideal.

PTo my mind, the "ideal" of ethno-nationalism is itself somewhat suspect.

[Jacob]

Berkut - I don't think Oex put them into a hierarchy? He just suggested that these factors make separatism a harder sell these days.

Personally, I'm with you in many ways - I'm pretty attached to my material comforts and would rate material well-being for people above various abstract ideals in most cases. On the other hand that's not an uncommon argument in favour of "Asian values" (you know "the Communist party lifted hundreds of millions out of absolute poverty, that is the most important human right!" and "yes, Singapore is 'highly controlled' but it's also orderly, prosperous and safe" etc), so I'm not sure how far it goes.

The other thing I'm unsure about in Oex's post is the "quasi-end of history rhetoric" bit. Are people still thinking and arguing like we're at the end of history? Seems like there's plenty going on between economic crises, the rise of China, Brazil, India etc and the recent developments in the Arab world. Or is it a more technical term?