Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indeed it is. French Canadian culture largely survived from the 1760s to the 1970s in spite of the political systems we were a part of, not because of them.
It's only since the 1970s that things have become more benign or even supportive.
Have you ever considered that it's only because Quebec has been part of confederation that all those great things about the province have been made possible? As a separate nation of 8 million surrounded by over 300 million Anglophones the place would not have a chance of preserving it's own unique culture. At present the culture, language and customs of Quebec are preserved precisely because it is part of a bigger entity called Canada. On it's own I would give it 50 years maybe and it would just be an extension of New England culturally and economically.
I agree with Acajack that this is a bit of a stretch, that being poorer would lead to the assimilation of the culture as a whole. I don't think those things necessarily follow, why wouldn't it just be a smaller, maybe less economically successful but more ethnically homogenous country where the culture is preserved? I think that is the most likely scenario, and that perhaps you are trying to make the argument that Quebec can better achieve its goals as a part of Canada then it would be able to outside of it, but I truly think this particular part of that argument is misguided. I agree that many of the things that make Quebec great may not have developed or may not be as good if it were not a part of Canada. I think that Canada has helped Quebec to develop into the special place that it is, and that Quebec has also shaped the rest of Canada. I agree that the "Quebec dream" and the goal of achieving the highest quality lives for everyone that lives in Quebec would be best achieved as part of a united Canada, and that this can be achieved while also addressing cultural concerns. I think that history is proving me right, and that there are many things that are wrong in Quebec but that the province is generally on a positive track and that things are improving and will continue to do so, slowly but surely.
Like I said, I am not a separatist (and neither is Acajack, fyi, although I don't presume my other opinions are his)
Just like Haitian culture has become a clone of the culture of the Dominican Republic?
This is absolutely positively ridiculous.
And then people wonder why we lose patience in such discussions.
That reminds me of when a Conservative cabinet minister (probably James Moore, because he's the one who usually did those things) went to Tout le monde en parle and claimed that the War of 1812 was responsible for French being spoken in Canada today. I just couldn't understand what he meant, until I remembered that the spin the Harper government puts on the War of 1812 is that it was initiated by the perfidious Americans to conquer Canada, and that in English Canadian circles it's frequently claimed that French still is spoken in Canada thanks to Canada's policy of protecting it, or at least that Quebecers would definitely not speak French today if they had been part of the United States.
To me this borders on insulting. It's denying the role francophones in Canada have played even as actors in their own history. They don't still exist today because "Canada!", but because generations of francophones took their identity to heart and transmitted it to their children despite the difficulties. English Canadians do have reasons to be proud of their country, but they don't get to claim things that happened independently of them, or even against their volition, as their own doing.
That reminds me of when a Conservative cabinet minister (probably James Moore, because he's the one who usually did those things) went to Tout le monde en parle and claimed that the War of 1812 was responsible for French being spoken in Canada today. I just couldn't understand what he meant, until I remembered that the spin the Harper government puts on the War of 1812 is that it was initiated by the perfidious Americans to conquer Canada, and that in English Canadian circles it's frequently claimed that French still is spoken in Canada thanks to Canada's policy of protecting it, or at least that Quebecers would definitely not speak French today if they had been part of the United States.
To me this borders on insulting. It's denying the role francophones in Canada have played even as actors in their own history. They don't still exist today because "Canada!", but because generations of francophones took their identity to heart and transmitted it to their children despite the difficulties. English Canadians do have reasons to be proud of their country, but they don't get to claim things that happened independently of them, or even against their volition, as their own doing.
That reminds me of when a Conservative cabinet minister (probably James Moore, because he's the one who usually did those things) went to Tout le monde en parle and claimed that the War of 1812 was responsible for French being spoken in Canada today. I just couldn't understand what he meant, until I remembered that the spin the Harper government puts on the War of 1812 is that it was initiated by the perfidious Americans to conquer Canada, and that in English Canadian circles it's frequently claimed that French still is spoken in Canada thanks to Canada's policy of protecting it, or at least that Quebecers would definitely not speak French today if they had been part of the United States.
To me this borders on insulting. It's denying the role francophones in Canada have played even as actors in their own history. They don't still exist today because "Canada!", but because generations of francophones took their identity to heart and transmitted it to their children despite the difficulties. English Canadians do have reasons to be proud of their country, but they don't get to claim things that happened independently of them, or even against their volition, as their own doing.
It is very insulting, and also not true.
It is a case of twisting histories with the aim of building national appreciation. It was policy to eliminate French for over 150 years. Conveniently, this is not mentioned. The biggest threat has been anglo Canadians and the British. Not Americans. Comparing Quebec to Louisiana is senseless. Louisiana had a tiny population and still francophones lived into the 20th century. Canada was entirely francophone and now is 23%. Only the large birth rate of francophone women kept it alive in Canada. If Quebec was the US I see no reason to believe it would be different from under the British/Canadians.
It is a case of twisting histories with the aim of building national appreciation. It was policy to eliminate French for over 150 years. Conveniently, this is not mentioned. The biggest threat has been anglo Canadians and the British. Not Americans. Comparing Quebec to Louisiana is senseless. Louisiana had a tiny population and still francophones lived into the 20th century. Canada was entirely francophone and now is 23%. Only the large birth rate of francophone women kept it alive in Canada. If Quebec was the US I see no reason to believe it would be different from under the British/Canadians.
If anything Quebec might be more homogenously francophone if it had been part of the U.S. as climactically, economically and agriculturally it would not have been as desirable a place for many people from the British Isles to settle as it was in the context of British North America way back in the day.
It is a case of twisting histories with the aim of building national appreciation. It was policy to eliminate French for over 150 years. Conveniently, this is not mentioned. The biggest threat has been anglo Canadians and the British. Not Americans. Comparing Quebec to Louisiana is senseless. Louisiana had a tiny population and still francophones lived into the 20th century. Canada was entirely francophone and now is 23%. Only the large birth rate of francophone women kept it alive in Canada. If Quebec was the US I see no reason to believe it would be different from under the British/Canadians.
Like you said, it has more to do with building bridges instead of actual history. If anything saved the Canadiens, it was the support of the church and the fact that Canadien families regularly as many as ten or more children. Nothing was a bigger detriment to French in Canada than the Canadian government.
I literally could not care less if Quebec separates.
This is the scariest sentiment of all to me... Its not just about not caring if Quebec separates - its not caring about the other threads that bind unraveling bit by bit until what is left is completely unrecognizable - Quebec is a very thick thread though..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
