Quebecois nationhood

I

IronDuke

Ancient Mariner
So just a few minutes ago, the Federal Parliament in Ottawa passed a motion recognizing the Quebecois as "a nation within Canada".

This came after a surprize announcement by the Prime Minister that he was going to table such a resolution, and after a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Parry (Michael Ignatieff) had been saying just this thing for months. Legally, it changes absolutely nothing in Canada - for now. The fear is that the sovereigntists will use this as leverage for achieving independance.
One cabinet minister has resigned so far over the issue, but all parties in the parliament supported it enough to pass easily.

So what do you folks think this will mean for the future of Canada? What defines a "nation"? More importantly, what does NOT define a nation? Is it an antiquated concept, akin to petty tribalism? (I say yes...)

For those familiar with Canada, would any of the following groups constitute a nation in the same way Quebec now officially does? Acadians, Newfoundlanders, Cape Bretoners, Ukranians, Chinese, and (most importantly) "Anglo" Canadians (Specifically those descended from the British Isles)
 
To re-write what I PM-ed you:

This new concept of nationhood will right the wrongs of the past against the francophones, as originally all provinces were supposed to be bilingual.  On the other hand, the separatists will use this as evidence that Quebecois do indeed require their own country during the next referendum -- and it is coming; it is naive to assume this will satiate them.

It is hard to foresee the impact of this.  I applaud when certain groups of people are acknowledged for their roles, trials and tribulations within and for Canada, I just hope this does not encourage some people into forsaking their Canadian identity.  I do believe we need a single identity, yet I also think provinces deserve more power like that in the states.
 
Genghis Khan said:
To re-write what I PM-ed you:

This new concept of nationhood will right the wrongs of the past against the francophones, as originally all provinces were supposed to be bilingual.
Click to expand...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but which wrongs would those be? From the Quebec Act in the 1760's, the Quebecois have been gaurenteed freedom of religion, full enfranchisement, full rights to property, the perpetuation of their own legal traditions, etc.

And each province was not meant to be bilingual. Sure, it'd be nice if we all spoke both official languages, but to say there was a grand design at Confederation to make us all speak some "Franglais" is just silly. Especially in the provinces which were already in existence. Manitoba, I'll admit, was originally concieved as a bilingual province, but they realised that after the Riel fiasco, no French people wanted to move there.
 
IronDuke said:
but to say there was a grand design at Confederation to make us all speak some "Franglais" is just silly.
Click to expand...

Many French thought so and certainly hoped so.  The English Tories thought differently.  Well, of course this does not follow true with Ontario or Newfoundland, which wasn't part of Canada until 1949, I was thinking about the other provinces.  Acadia was largely French.  New Brunswick is bilingual today; this could have been true with Nova Scotia.  The French were devestated when they learnt that French as an official language was as good as dead in the Canadian west.  This and the Riel hanging helped escalate French nationalism.

IronDuke said:
but they realised that after the Riel fiasco, no French people wanted to move there.
Click to expand...

They did not?  Well, dropping French language in Manitoba schools went against the Manitoba Act of 1870.  Yes, the English-speaking settlers were encouraged to come to the Red River area and rest of Manitoba and the French were being overwhelmed.  But, I think the French language could have survived if it were not for the Manitoba Schools Act of 1890.  Immigrants from non-English speaking countries would speak the language of the neighbourhood/school.

This would probably create other problems, if bilingualism was widespread.  I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing out the fact that many francophones did and still do feel gipped.  Remember Je me souviens; the French certainly do.  Whatever the full meaning of that phrase was meant to be, there is no mistake that some French people take it to mean 'the bloody English have done horrible things to us'.
 
Genghis Khan said:
Many French thought so and certainly hoped so.  The English Tories thought differently.  Well, of course this does not follow true with Ontario or Newfoundland, which wasn't part of Canada until 1949, I was thinking about the other provinces.  Acadia was largely French.  New Brunswick is bilingual today; this could have been true with Nova Scotia.  The French were devestated when they learnt that French as an official language was as good as dead in the Canadian west.  This and the Riel hanging helped escalate French nationalism.
Click to expand...
Actually, by the 1860's French speaking peoples in the Maritimes constituted only a tiny portion of the region's population. The only districts in which they existed in any significant numbers were Madawaska and Restigouche counties in northern New Brunwsick. It was only in the early 20th century that their high birthrates caused their overall numbers to rise in relation to the Anglo-Maritimers. Today they constitute roughly 30% of the population of New Brunswick and about 15% of the Maritimes in total. (Source: Prof. ER Forbes. The Atlantic Provinces in Confederation, 1993.)

As for the French being "devestated" when they realized the West wasn't exactly open to them, I don't think that's quite true. For reasons which have yet to be fully explored, Quebec's population was comparatively stagnant from 1870 (or so) until after World War II. It did rise, but not so much that a massive migration to "new lands" would have been necessary. Contrast to the booming population of Anglo-Ontario and the massive influxes of immigrants to the Praries in the same era. The net result was that there were neither "push" nor "pull" factors for most Quebecois to go west, and the few who did go were in such a small minority that they found it hard to maintain their Frenchness after a few generations. (Source: Prof. JM Bumsted The Peoples of Canada: A Post-Confederation History. 2nd ed. 2004.)

This would probably create other problems, if bilingualism was widespread.  I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing out the fact that many francophones did and still do feel gipped.  Remember Je me souviens; the French certainly do.  Whatever the full meaning of that phrase was meant to be, there is no mistake that some French people take it to mean 'the bloody English have done horrible things to us'.
Click to expand...

There's another factor which seldom is considered here: Geography. Quebec was physically cut off from the West because Ontario is a little tad "Wester". Hence they get easier access. Add to that the already-existing English settlements in what became British Columbia, the French really didn't have much of a chance of migrating in the numbers required. Historical geographers have done some great work on this.
As for "Je me souviens", I always thought that was a reference to the rich cultural heritage of the province, not a reference to a specific past injustice. Were that the case, I would think other provinces would be ding similar things - Nova Scotians could interpret 1867 as our own "Plains of Abraham" - when we had our independance taken away against our own will (to solve a political problem caused by Quebec, might I add...)
In other words, "Je me souviens" is a reference to remembering the totality of Quebecois history - from Champlain to Celine Dion and all points in between. It's a way of rooting one's self in an identity lest it be lost.
 
The news reminds me of my neighbour country Belgium. Language fanatism has taken outrageous forms out there.

In my opinion Belgium should either be devided into two seperated states with own governments (to end stupid language rules and bureaucracy), either it should be split up and shared between the Netherlands and France.
 
Personally, I really don't care. Will it change anything, I doubt it. Then again, I never understood that whole "we need a country" thing. Will that change anything? Yea, instead of being fucked by the neighbour, we'll be fucked by our brother. Wow, what a difference.
 
IronDuke said:
I thought Belgium was a great example of how numerous cultures can co-exist peacfully.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The country has a very big political party "Vlaams Belang". This nationalistic and conservative party is dividing the country.

The language (Dutch and French) issue is really rediculous. A lot of people don't accept the other language.

Straddling the cultural boundary between Germanic and Romance Europe, Belgium is linguistically divided. It has two main languages: 60%, mainly in the region Flanders, speak Dutch (while Belgians of both major languages often refer to it as Flemish) ; French is spoken by 40% in the southern region Wallonia and in the officially bilingual Brussels-Capital Region which also includes a Dutch-speaking minority. Less than 1% of the Belgian people, live in the German-speaking Community in the east of the country. This linguistic diversity often leads to political and cultural conflict and is reflected in Belgium's complex system of government and political history.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4545433.stm -->

Language dispute divides Belgium 

Streets signs are sometimes defaced in the language dispute:
_41143633_1bike203.jpg


The Belgian government has won a vote of confidence in parliament after months of failed negotiations about language rights in an electoral district on the edge of Brussels.

The dispute pits the country's Dutch-speaking Flemish population against the French-speaking Walloons.

A decision about how to solve the problem has now been put off for another two years - but it has already brought bigger questions into focus about Belgium's future as a unified country.

The current dispute is complicated - how should an electoral district which includes suburban Flanders and parts of Brussels be split up between the country's Flemish and French-speaking political parties?

Many French speakers have been moving into the Dutch-speaking suburbs in the last few years - and the Flemish parties are determined not to lose control.

"It bothers me as a Flemish person that people who come and live here don't want to adapt," says an elderly resident of the town of Vilvoorde. "Immigrants have to learn our language, but the French don't. What does that tell you?"

One nation?

Similar arguments have been raging for years. Belgium is a federal state, painstakingly constructed. The regional governments in Flanders and Wallonia already enjoy considerable autonomy - controlling things like education, healthcare and social security.

As other political powers are transferred in the other direction, towards the European Union, many commentators here are confronting an uncomfortable issue: what's the point of Belgium?

"This is not a technicality any more," says Michel De Meulenaere, the National Editor of Le Soir newspaper. "We have to ask more fundamental questions. What do we have in common, and do we still have the will to live together in a united country?"

The Dutch-speaking and French-speaking communities tend to keep themselves to themselves, but tensions rise close to the country's internal border, where any attempt to change the linguistic balance is hotly disputed.

In the years following World War II, violent clashes were not uncommon. That does not happen now. But serious questions are being asked about the long-term future of a country in which the two main communities, divided by language, have so little in common.
 
@Dukey:  It seems my memory is more biased towards the French, as I recalled larger population sizes.  But who's to argue with quotes from professors, eh Duke.  ;)  Good work.  :ok:
 
Forostar said:
In the years following World War II, violent clashes were not uncommon. That does not happen now. But serious questions are being asked about the long-term future of a country in which the two main communities, divided by language, have so little in common.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected then. Nice post.

Does anyone think it kind of weird that in an age of increasing globalization and integration that this kind of tribalism is actually on the rise, instead of retreating? It seems rather paradoxical.
Perhaps it's a defense mechanism - they see their identity being threatened by a seemingly unstoppable force, ergo they seek to reassert themselves. Who knows...
 
I don't doubt it is a defense mechanism. Just like religious fanatism is a reaction to secularization, these attempts of independence and other measures to differentiate from the "other", could very well be ways to fight globalization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top