[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Valmy]

You keep alternating between "your argument is totally wrong" and "your argument is so obviously right it is trivial". 

No I don't think your argument was wrong. I just didn't see what it had to do with what Oex was saying

Attack on Justification: other groups have differences that are of equal or greater import. 

Make sense to you?

Ok I had not thought of it like that. So if the First Nations did not exist you would completely support Quebec but because they do you do not?

[Malthus]

You keep alternating between "your argument is totally wrong" and "your argument is so obviously right it is trivial". 

No I don't think your argument was wrong. I just didn't see what it had to do with what Oex was saying

Attack on Justification: other groups have differences that are of equal or greater import. 

Make sense to you?

Ok I had not thought of it like that. So if the First Nations did not exist you would completely support Quebec but because they do you do not?

To quote myself a couple of posts up:

I also keep bringing up Alberta, BC, and Newfoundland ...

I dunno why you are so fixated on the First Nations. They are but one example of what I'm talking about.

[crazy canuck]

Is that true? Is Quebec the only 'unhappy' province?

Unhappy with the 1982 Constitution, yes.  All the others signed it.  For fear of being seen on the side of a former seperatist government.

That isnt why people signed 

that's certainly how Trudeau&Chrétien got the last remaining one who wanted to call Lévesque to sign.

I think that is again a uniquely Quebec narrative. 

[Valmy]

I dunno why you are so fixated on the First Nations. They are but one example of what I'm talking about.

Because in the post I was addressing that was the example you used. Also it seems like the most similar to Quebec.

I don't think having regional differences is as significant as a language barrier. Especially when dealing with English speaking North Americans. If you don't speak English in the US you might as well not exist.

[Malthus]

I dunno why you are so fixated on the First Nations. They are but one example of what I'm talking about.

Because in the post I was addressing that was the example you used. Also it seems like the most similar to Quebec.

It was one of the examples I used, yes.

An attack based on its singularity, when I've repeatedly made others, strikes me as ill-founded.

I don't think having regional differences is as significant as a language barrier. Especially when dealing with English speaking North Americans. If you don't speak English in the US you might as well not exist.

Have you ever heard a Newfoundlander speak? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqLuIXwsLDw

[viper37]

Is that true? Is Quebec the only 'unhappy' province?

Unhappy with the 1982 Constitution, yes.  All the others signed it.  For fear of being seen on the side of a former seperatist government.

That isnt why people signed 

that's certainly how Trudeau&Chrétien got the last remaining one who wanted to call Lévesque to sign.

I think that is again a uniquely Quebec narrative. 

Of course.  For Canada, it was the greatest of days.  Not one question on why the predominently speaking french province disagreed on the Constitution while the 9 english speaking provinces felt it was the best thing to have.

[garbon]

I dunno why you are so fixated on the First Nations. They are but one example of what I'm talking about.

Because in the post I was addressing that was the example you used. Also it seems like the most similar to Quebec.

I don't think having regional differences is as significant as a language barrier. Especially when dealing with English speaking North Americans. If you don't speak English in the US you might as well not exist.

I know of plenty of people who certainly exist but don't really speak English in US.

[Valmy]

I know of plenty of people who certainly exist but don't really speak English in US.

I wasn't being literal.

[Oexmelin]

I don't think having regional differences is as significant as a language barrier.

It is quite remarkable, isn't it? That idea of Quebec's difference within Canada is so politically abhorrent to Malthus that its needs to be either discredited with moral language I have not used, or equated, and thereby negated, to every other difference out there, to the point of refusing to even acknowledge what is well documented fact of social life - the impact of language-based forum for politics, a fact that I am confronted with each day, I might add. 

No Malthus, as Valmy has pointed out, I was not making such distinction "righteous", "better", "more awesomer" than any other difference within Canada. I specifically used terms like "political brokers" precisely to *enable* comparisons with other situations across Canada, which CC quite easily recognized. And yes, I am quite convinced that the Inuit language creates, and hosts a political, and cultural reality that is quite different from Quebec's, Ontario's or New Brunswick's, or, for that matter, Haudenosaunee or Anishinaabeg. And I am sure that the Inuits have their own political brokers. And I know that Inuits are awesome.

But, these political brokers have to have access to larger constituencies with whom to build common ground. In Nunavut, I am quite sure that this building up will be conducted in English.

Now, if you think that language is equivalent to any other politically constituted interests, or taste in music, or hairstyle, or the myriad of other things that constituted culture taken individually - appears to be it is, to put it mildly, such a gross distortion of what language is that I can only conclude it is a politically motivated point. To presume that crossing a language barrier is similar to moving from Toronto to Vancouver, or from Newfoundland to Saskatchewan suggests to me it is not something you have experienced in a meaningful way. From friends' testimonies, I am sure going to the North *is* a formidable culture shock. I am also sure an English-speaker in Nunavut might end up excluded from certain conversations - but he or she will be speaking the language of power, administration, justice, police, finances, allowing him or her precisely ways out of the limits of the North.

The politicalreality of Canada means that Quebec as a province, an already constituted polity, which recoups, but does not equal entirely a community, will generate brokers with a lot more weight nationally. Not because they are awesome. Not because Quebec is tribal. But because political brokers are - generally - created from within their own communities. i.e, Jewish political brokers are usually from the Jewish community. Outsiders can sometimes get in, and there are rare occurrences of go-betweens (Jack Layton, as has been pointed out). That, in Quebec, French is also the language of administration, police, justice, finance, etc.

Nowhere was the difference in tone made more salient for me then when I lived in Hamilton. Listening to French Radio-Canada from Toronto was such an alien experience, because there, it was a "community" radio. It assumed most of its listeners would get their national news from the CBC - what they covered were the cultural stuff, and the "special interest" news (French schools, for instance). It was a proximity radio the way Radio-Canada in Quebec is not.

Quite apart from the cultural aspects to language (i.e., the way it shapes our understanding of the world, the way it provides common references), it is also precisely how those political issues are being debated, the manner in which it is being debated, the rhetorical tricks, the command over nuances, etc. To put it in the mildest possible form: a master politician from Alberta will have at his command a large repertoire of issues, tone, references, etc., that will allow him to export his skill most everywhere. Will he need to fine tune his discourse? Of course. But he will also have been brought up in a media world that would have given him a sense of how debate is conducted in the rest of English-speaking Canada, and from a multiplicity of sources. I am willing to bet that you, a cultured, educated English-speaking Canadian, have to rely on a much smaller number of interpreters and go-betweens (Chantal Hébert, Lysiane Gagnon?) to even "get" what is being spoken, and debated, in Quebec, much less the manner in which it is debated. 

[HVC]

You lived in Hamilton, huh? I get you dislike of English Canada now

[Oexmelin]

I liked Hamilton, and have good memories of the place and people there. Hated the prevalence of Tim Horton's  It's obviously a town suffering from de-industrialization, and thus, from white collar spite (I include my own criticisms in this).

[Zoupa]

Quebec has created a very potent mythology of discontent and victimization

Lol.

Mythology definition: a collection of myths.

Myth definition:
1 - a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

2 - a widely held but false belief or idea.

Which is it Malthus?

[PRC]

I liked Hamilton, and have good memories of the place and people there. Hated the prevalence of Tim Horton's  It's obviously a town suffering from de-industrialization, and thus, from white collar spite (I include my own criticisms in this).

It's clearly a hijack / sidebar to the current conversation here, but my wife is from "the Armpit of Canada" and i'm interested in your experience there...

From my own visits I fully get the de-industrialization angle, but what do you mean by suffering from white collar spite?

I'm not looking to catch you here, I'm just interested in your experience in Hamilton and how it meshes with my own visits there and my interactions with my in-laws who are all still deeply embedded in the place.  Basically i'm looking for ammo.

[Admiral Yi]

If Hamilton is the armpit, what is Thunder Bay?

[Malthus]

I don't think having regional differences is as significant as a language barrier.

It is quite remarkable, isn't it? That idea of Quebec's difference within Canada is so politically abhorrent to Malthus that its needs to be either discredited with moral language I have not used, or equated, and thereby negated, to every other difference out there, to the point of refusing to even acknowledge what is well documented fact of social life - the impact of language-based forum for politics, a fact that I am confronted with each day, I might add. 

Hey, minor point, but that was Valmy you were quoting, not me. 

"Politically abhorrent", really? What sinister political objective do you think I have in attacking your special pleading here? 

How about a plain old 'I don't find your argument particularly convincing'? Or that 'while language is no doubt important, so are other criteria of identity, belonging, and self-interest'?

The notion that the only reason the obvious correctness of your position isn't believed is because of a motive on the part of the person arguing against you is, I think, a sort of ... fallacy?

No Malthus, as Valmy has pointed out, I was not making such distinction "righteous", "better", "more awesomer" than any other difference within Canada. I specifically used terms like "political brokers" precisely to *enable* comparisons with other situations across Canada, which CC quite easily recognized. And yes, I am quite convinced that the Inuit language creates, and hosts a political, and cultural reality that is quite different from Quebec's, Ontario's or New Brunswick's, or, for that matter, Haudenosaunee or Anishinaabeg. And I am sure that the Inuits have their own political brokers. And I know that Inuits are awesome.

But, these political brokers have to have access to larger constituencies with whom to build common ground. In Nunavut, I am quite sure that this building up will be conducted in English.

Now, if you think that language is equivalent to any other politically constituted interests, or taste in music, or hairstyle, or the myriad of other things that constituted culture taken individually - appears to be it is, to put it mildly, such a gross distortion of what language is that I can only conclude it is a politically motivated point. To presume that crossing a language barrier is similar to moving from Toronto to Vancouver, or from Newfoundland to Saskatchewan suggests to me it is not something you have experienced in a meaningful way. From friends' testimonies, I am sure going to the North *is* a formidable culture shock. I am also sure an English-speaker in Nunavut might end up excluded from certain conversations - but he or she will be speaking the language of power, administration, justice, police, finances, allowing him or her precisely ways out of the limits of the North.

Now you are transparently minimizing the very real differences by exaggeration. 

A nice rhetorical trick, to be sure, but I am not discussing differences in musical tastes or hairstyles here. I am discussing differences in basic political imperatives.

One go-to example is the National Energy Policy - something that benefitted "Central Canada" at the expense of "the West".

It certainly can be equated to a "haircut", but of the financial, not the fashionable, variety. 

The narrative of the "two solitudes" is wonderfully descriptive - as it applies to the relationship between and within Ontario and Quebec. What you fail to see, is that it has far less relevance to the rest of the country, who may be forgiven for believing that there are, at least, "six solitudes" - Ontario, Quebec, "the West", BC, Atlantic Canada, and the First Nations.

Why insist that only one criterion of identity apparently really matters as far as "power brokers" are concerned? Even if you want to exclude the relatively powerless - so consign First Nations and Atlantic Canada to the void - you are still left with four blocks who often have little in common as "power brokers". There isn't a good justification for why one is privileged over the others, other than that it has worked out a way it can be.

What you haven't made a case for, is why only one of those "counts". Other than that no-one who hasn't grown up in Quebec could possibly understand it, even if they spoke perfect French - which is true really of anywhere. 

The politicalreality of Canada means that Quebec as a province, an already constituted polity, which recoups, but does not equal entirely a community, will generate brokers with a lot more weight nationally. Not because they are awesome. Not because Quebec is tribal. But because political brokers are - generally - created from within their own communities. i.e, Jewish political brokers are usually from the Jewish community. Outsiders can sometimes get in, and there are rare occurrences of go-betweens (Jack Layton, as has been pointed out). That, in Quebec, French is also the language of administration, police, justice, finance, etc.

Nowhere was the difference in tone made more salient for me then when I lived in Hamilton. Listening to French Radio-Canada from Toronto was such an alien experience, because there, it was a "community" radio. It assumed most of its listeners would get their national news from the CBC - what they covered were the cultural stuff, and the "special interest" news (French schools, for instance). It was a proximity radio the way Radio-Canada in Quebec is not.

Quite apart from the cultural aspects to language (i.e., the way it shapes our understanding of the world, the way it provides common references), it is also precisely how those political issues are being debated, the manner in which it is being debated, the rhetorical tricks, the command over nuances, etc. To put it in the mildest possible form: a master politician from Alberta will have at his command a large repertoire of issues, tone, references, etc., that will allow him to export his skill most everywhere. Will he need to fine tune his discourse? Of course. But he will also have been brought up in a media world that would have given him a sense of how debate is conducted in the rest of English-speaking Canada, and from a multiplicity of sources. I am willing to bet that you, a cultured, educated English-speaking Canadian, have to rely on a much smaller number of interpreters and go-betweens (Chantal Hébert, Lysiane Gagnon?) to even "get" what is being spoken, and debated, in Quebec, much less the manner in which it is debated.

A politician who grew up in the political and social climate Alberta is unlikely to have anything to say to a polity in Newfoundland (or vice versa), even if they spoke with the same "nuances", which they don't - a person speaking with a thick Newfoundland accent can hardly be understood by someone from Alberta, even though technically they both speak English. How could they possibly understand the fine tuned requirements of political culture there, not having grown up there?

I know the vast differences in political and social climate (even in language) because my family, a couple of generations ago, came from Nova Scotia and had relations on the Rock. The notion that Atlantic Canada, and particularly Newfoundland, is "tuned in" to (say) Ontario or Alberta, is incorrect.

So that argument falls away.

In any event, even if it could be demonstrated that having a different language is *more* different that having a wholly different culture, which it probably could (note I'm not denying this), does not impact the argument that language is only one of many criteria which separate polities.