[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Drakken]

I readily admit that Quebecers have an Us vs Them mentality.  That is readily apparent from our discussion today.  You have persuaded me that it is very unlikely that a convinced Quebecer would change their view that the days of a homogeneous Anglo Other is long gone despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Convinced?

[crazy canuck]

Wait.

I get it.  You were mimicking Viper's comment about everything being the same outside Quebec.  Well played sir.  But I think you risk others thinking you were serious. 

Dude. I have never been to Canada. I never said everything was the same outside of Quebec only that I was not aware of anything I just had to see.

Ah, you just don't know any better.  Ok.  I can accept that.

[Valmy]

Ah, you just don't know any better.  Ok.  I can accept that.

The Canadian Ministry for Tourism rarely advertises to Texans

[crazy canuck]

I readily admit that Quebecers have an Us vs Them mentality.  That is readily apparent from our discussion today.  You have persuaded me that it is very unlikely that a convinced Quebecer would change their view that the days of a homogeneous Anglo Other is long gone despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Convinced?

Yes someone who is convinced their view is correct.

Perhaps that doesn't translate very well.  But it seems obvious that you have explained a world view held by Quebecers that the rest of Canada is some kind of Anglo region without meaningful distinction. 

[Grey Fox]

This thread moves fast when CC is bored at work.

You grasps us pretty well there, CC.

[Barrister]

Well if you can get me tickets to buy I would love to go to a Caps-Jets game with you

But only if you promise people won't throw stuff at me.

You don't know much about Manitoba.  The place is so friendly they even put it on the license plate:

Where is that fort thing located? That looks cool.

It's Fort Prince of Wales on the shores of Hudson Bay, near Churchill.

I'm GOING to visit it one day, it looks really cool.  Built in the 18th century to protect the fur trade from the dastardly French.  Now of course it's in the middle of absolutely nowhere.  But you can tell how much money was being made off of furs based on how much time and effort was spent in building such a big fort in the sub-arctic.

And you can make out that while the fort was built on the banks of the Churchill River back in the 1700s, a few hundred years of glacial rebound have pushed Hudson's Bay several hundred yards away.

[crazy canuck]

Ah, you just don't know any better.  Ok.  I can accept that.

The Canadian Ministry for Tourism rarely advertises to Texans

But you should know what while we are geographically close and share some similar cultural similarities I would strongly suggest you visit both Seattle and Vancouver. 

Having said that there is much more in common between Vancouver and Seattle than say Vancouver and any other Canadian city.  Toronto is also unique in Canada in its own way and more akin to a large diverse US city.  If you visited Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Quebec City and somewhere in the Maritimes you would get a good sense of the regional diversity of the Country.

[Grey Fox]

Malthus is a WASP 

Do you understand why sometimes you might be viewed as a bit myopic?

And the First Nations folks have a thing or two to say about the founding of this nation and the fact that there would never have been a nation at all if not for their participation at critical points.  The war of 1812 comes to mind as one example.

It is dismissive in the extreme for people from Quebec to insist that it is patronizing to point out these facts.

No ones gives a flute about the war of 1812 in Quebec. There are three wars that count in Quebec : The 1760 Conquest, the 1837-1838 Rebellion in the Lower Canada (Higher Canada is thoroughly ignored), and World War I+II because of the conscription. Guess what is the common thread in all three of them?

While I 100% agree the problem of Native Canadians is acute in Quebec as much as everywhere else, it doesn't come into the national framework of Quebecers. And like I said, any dismissal or counterargument by a ROC Anglo, true or not, will be seen as yet another Anglophone trying to depict them as a Fifth column of the National Front. This might surprise you, but no one likes to be collectively called racists and xenophobes.

You may not like it, you may find it myopic or *gasp* xenophobic, but this is the knock-knock reality of how Quebecers by and large define their identity and their relation to Canada. Fail to get it as a political leader, and Quebec will ignore you at best or distrust you at worst. Confront it from a semblant higher ground, and the spectre of separation will come back climbing in the polls. Get it, without judging them or chastising them, and they'll massively drop the vote for you, Anglo or not. It is that simple.

Your need to characterize all arguments as either Anglo or Quebecer is instructive.  It further confirms I would never succeed as a Federal politician.  I would be too busy trying to explain to Quebec voters (apparently very unsuccessfully) that First Nations, Chinese Canadians, South Asian Canadians etc are not Anglos 

That is because someone has already successfully convinced us (and you) otherwise, Ontarians. Canada would be a much better place if the Albertans would learn to work with us instead of against us.

[crazy canuck]

This thread moves fast when CC is bored at work.

You grasps us pretty well there, CC.

[crazy canuck]

Malthus is a WASP 

Do you understand why sometimes you might be viewed as a bit myopic?

And the First Nations folks have a thing or two to say about the founding of this nation and the fact that there would never have been a nation at all if not for their participation at critical points.  The war of 1812 comes to mind as one example.

It is dismissive in the extreme for people from Quebec to insist that it is patronizing to point out these facts.

No ones gives a flute about the war of 1812 in Quebec. There are three wars that count in Quebec : The 1760 Conquest, the 1837-1838 Rebellion in the Lower Canada (Higher Canada is thoroughly ignored), and World War I+II because of the conscription. Guess what is the common thread in all three of them?

While I 100% agree the problem of Native Canadians is acute in Quebec as much as everywhere else, it doesn't come into the national framework of Quebecers. And like I said, any dismissal or counterargument by a ROC Anglo, true or not, will be seen as yet another Anglophone trying to depict them as a Fifth column of the National Front. This might surprise you, but no one likes to be collectively called racists and xenophobes.

You may not like it, you may find it myopic or *gasp* xenophobic, but this is the knock-knock reality of how Quebecers by and large define their identity and their relation to Canada. Fail to get it as a political leader, and Quebec will ignore you at best or distrust you at worst. Confront it from a semblant higher ground, and the spectre of separation will come back climbing in the polls. Get it, without judging them or chastising them, and they'll massively drop the vote for you, Anglo or not. It is that simple.

Your need to characterize all arguments as either Anglo or Quebecer is instructive.  It further confirms I would never succeed as a Federal politician.  I would be too busy trying to explain to Quebec voters (apparently very unsuccessfully) that First Nations, Chinese Canadians, South Asian Canadians etc are not Anglos 

That is because someone has already successfully convinced us (and you) otherwise, Ontarians. Canada would be a much better place if the Albertans would learn to work with us instead of against us.

The funny thing is that from the perspective of this side of the country, we have very little to do with anyone East of the Rockies.  Recently NorthernEastern BC was heavily influenced by the Oil Sand development but now that that activity has died down our connections to Asia and the Western US again dominate our concerns.  Very little of what happens in the Country really affects or matters to us.  I suppose we have at least that in common with our friends in Quebec. 

[HVC]

Ontarians? What'd I do now?

[Drakken]

Perhaps that doesn't translate very well.  But it seems obvious that you have explained a world view held by Quebecers that the rest of Canada is some kind of Anglo region without meaningful distinction.

All Quebecers know that Anglo regions are multicultural in their demographic fabric.

However, what the ROC (and the Federal government) collectively represents in the Quebecers' collective identity is the symbol of English Power, L'Anglais, the threat of those who proposed a policy of assimilation in the Durham Report (notwithstanding that it wasn't based on language, but religion as Catholics are obviously lazy and complacent, and that this report directly brought Responsible Government to Canada); who forced Quebecers in wars we did not want to be in (especially the first one. The second one at least there was a referendum to clear the government from its promise not to use conscription. Even then, 90% of Quebecers voted No); who bangwagoned together and voted 9-on-10 against Quebec in 1981 when the Constitution was rapatriated (since Lévesque was a dumbass and a fool, since he has the Gang of Eight around him to face Trudeau), sunk Meech Lake in 1990 (two provinces, really), and in a panic illegally paid to send droves of ROC people who could not give a fig about Quebec before, at least until the referendum was nigh-on lost in 1995. And yes, the historical enmity against the Conqueror and English colonizer is still there underneath the skin, even though in reality they have been VERY conciliatory towards us compared to other local Catholic communities in their colonies (*cough* Ireland *Cough*)

Is the reality much more complex? Absolutely, on that I agree with you. But national and historical narratives are not threaded with nuances and complexities; they are inherently simplified around a few common, and even simplistic themes.

Basically, when the ROC asked "What does Quebec want" in the 90s. most Quebecers' reply was "To get us, which they will never do" and left it there at that. Hence why all federal politicians coming from outside Quebec will have a hard time piercing in Quebec - until he demonstrates that he does get us and is at least open to the idea of making things 'right'. And the price to pay is that any meaningful more to appease quebec is a sum-zero loss in the Rest of Canada.

[crazy canuck]

Is the reality much more complex? Absolutely, on that I agree with you. But national and historical narratives are not threaded with nuances and complexities; they are inherently simplified around a few common, and even simplistic themes.

Basically, when the ROC asked "What does Quebec want" in the 90s. most Quebecers' reply was "To get us, which they will never do" and left it there at that. Hence why all federal politician coming from outside Quebec will have a hard time piercing in Quebec - until he demonstrates that he does get us and is at least open to the idea of making things 'right'.

I agree.  But another simple truth is that the narrative Quebecers place upon the rest of Canada is increasingly inaccurate.  As a result the plea of Quebecers to be understood is more likely to be met with a similar plea.  As a result any federal politician who accepts the Quebec narrative will necessarily alienate all the other diverse peoples and regions of Canada.

Perhaps that is the best way of conceiving of the two solitudes now.  A social construct that only works in the Quebec narrative and is completely foreign to the reality outside Quebec. 

[Drakken]

I agree.  But another simple truth is that the narrative Quebecers place upon the rest of Canada is increasingly inaccurate.  As a result the plea of Quebecers to be understood is more likely to be met with a similar plea.  As a result any federal politician who accepts the Quebec narrative will necessarily alienate all the other diverse peoples and regions of Canada.

Perhaps that is the best way of conceiving of the two solitudes now.  A social construct that only works in the Quebec narrative and is completely foreign to the reality outside Quebec.

I agree with you that the reality is much more complex, and that Quebec does have its part of responsability. However, Tu quoque arguments rarely work with communities which feel are victims. And again, to most Quebecers the ball in on the ROC and their politicians' ball park to make gestures, not the other around. They chose to give Canada one last chance, and it was a very narrow win.

I thoroughly agree that there is an eternal sense of victimhood, a besieged mentality, in Quebec's national identify that is really not justified today. At extremes, it leads to be self-fulfilling prophecy. While they may have been victims in the past, and had scumbag moves politically made against them, past is past and bygones are bygones and no one is out to get Quebec today - except a few Quebec-bashers here and there. But hey, we have our own Anglo-bashers here too.

[Oexmelin]

The "Anglo" vs "Franco" divide will remain meaningful as long as the main source of political coverage and communication is based in one of those two languages. The "political brokers" for the various communities of BC, or Ontario, or Alberta serve to tie their communities to another, larger linguistic community - and in this case, they participate in English-language politics that can make them "national" figures everywhere, except Quebec. Quebec also has political brokers: the history of the country means that they therefore can become national figures throughout Canada.