Spoons, yes I have found the responses very informative - particularly those of severus. I did have a reasonable understanding of the complexity of the Québec issue. The previous separatist referenda have received quite a bit of publicity in the Australian media over the years and I have several Canadian friends who have filled me in on a lot of the details. The Québec question raises its head here too whenever one of the Australian states (usually WA) mutters about seceding from the Commonwealth. I do have a better understanding now too, I think, of the concept of “nationhood” as used in the Canadian context.
I don’t think the original article to which I referred was meant to be anything other than a brief informatory paragraph. It’s possible that tomorrow’s (Saturday’s) papers will carry more detailed articles on the topic.
First of all, thank you for the reply. It was informative and helpful.
The roots of my queries lie in the runup to the 1995 Quebec referendum, and it is interesting you should mention WA. In July and August of 1995, I was in WA (Americans, that’s “Western Australia” in this context, not “Washington”), and a number of similar squibs were appearing in the Perth media about the upcoming Quebec referendum. I’d head out for a beer, say, and when the locals found out I was Canadian, they wanted to know about Quebec separation. Some wanted to know how they could get the same for WA (sorry, I know nothing about the Australian constitution and I don’t know if it allows for a state’s secession); most just wanted to know if such a thing was possible in Canada and why. I was not very helpful, I’m afraid. But I do remember all the questions.
In early November 1995, after the Quebec referendum, my Australian relatives sent me the press clippings from the West Australian on the referendum results. It was front-page news.
I was in Australia a number of times subsequently, sometimes to visit my relatives in Perth, and sometimes on business in Sydney (and sometimes, I’d mix both, flying across Australia because “I was in the neighbourhood and thought I’d drop by because Sydney is a damn sight closer to Perth than Toronto,” and you take advantage of what you can), and I don’t recall such an interest in Canadian affairs after that. It seemed to be only when the media mentioned Canada and Quebec separation–even a short squib such as you linked to–that an interest, even an ill-informed one, was generated. And the reaction of the Western Australians was surprising.
But that’s why I’m interested in what the Australian (and other) media says on the issue: because the brevity of the items printed can hardly convey the complexity of the issue, and things are not as simple as they seem. It may be a little bit of a hijack to an otherwise informative thread, but I had to ask. Thanks again for your reply, and if the Saturday papers say anything about the issue, I’d appreciate hearing about it.
I’d say that Western Australians are atypical in this regard in their interest in the Québec secession question. You may not be aware, but WA has actually held a referendum on secession from the Commonwealth (in 1933), which was passed with a fairly significant majority. For various reasons WA never actually did secede but the sentiment is still there among some Western Australians and it doesn’t take a lot to bring it to the surface.
It was the French-Indian Wars that led to the stamp tax that led to the war of U.S. independence. Then the French navy assured the U.S. independence (I think). So the French played an important role in North American history, and in as much as the Quebecquois distinguish themselves from the rest of Canada primarily based on (the French) languge, I think they deserve some kind of tip of the political hat. But I wonder if true independence would benefit the people of Quebec that much. How much does the language really affect the pocketbook?
And can anyone explain to me why the French always giggle when they hear Quebecers talking?
Sure, but “French Canadians” also include people of many ethnic backgrounds (French, Irish, Scottish, Haitian, Italian, and many others). I am aware that anglophone Canadians mostly don’t consider themselves “English”, but my point is that francophone Canadians don’t consider themselves “French” either. These phrases are only linguistic descriptions.
Because the French are arrogant, convinced of their own superiority, and like to look down at the “colonials”. I’m kidding, of course, although it might not be entirely false. Personally, all the French people I’ve met have been good people. There are also a lot of links, historical and current, between Quebec and France. This said, some French people – I say “some”, and I’m not talking from personal experience, but rather from impression – seem to have a distorted view of other nations, and especially of other francophone nations. They are France, one of the great nations of the world, known everywhere for their great philosophers, while we’re a bunch of loggers and fur-traders, who speak like loggers and fur-traders. There is a difference between the French languages spoken in Quebec and in France, and in the mind of these French people, the French spoken in Quebec isn’t as good as theirs.
On the other hand, maybe it was just the first time they heard Quebecers speaking, and found the accent funny. I mean, I also find that French people have a funny accent, and might have giggled the first time I heard them speak.
I have other things to say, but also have to go to bed, so I’ll be back tomorrow.
For the same reason that the English always giggle when they hear Americans talking.
(For a real giggle, you ought to have heard the Québécoise that I follow around like a puppy trying to imitate the broad Nevada accent she had to interpret yesterday. The two accents blend together like olive oil and gasoline.)
Is Quebec a nation? My gut instinct reaction is no, because the connotations associated with the word in English are so tied up with the notion of being an independent sovereign country. If Quebec ever becomes a nation, it will be a drastically impoverished one.
It’s a different question if you ask about the people who have lived in Quebec for 400 years. Pure laine Quebecois do have a distinct cultural difference from the rest of the people in this country, and if you define a nation as a group of people, then I’d be willing to accept that definition. The vielle souche are a nation within the country of Canada.
However it’s not as hard and fast a distinction as it was 50 years ago. If you look at the history of Quebec, you should realize that average French-speaking Canadians were exploited for 350 years. They were ignorant, uneducated, downtrodden masses who were used and abused by the Church, politicians and businessmen up to the Duplessis era. They were kept that way because they were completely isolated by language. But what’s changed is there are many more bilingual people, and many more opportunities for Francophones to succeed in life.
There still is a lot of isolation in Quebec – it sometimes seems like the people who created the terms coureurs de bois and voyageurs now only go where other French Quebecers have already been, like parts of Florida and the Caribbean that cater to French speakers – but that isolation is slowly disappearing.
Well, the thing is that, from my personal experience, anglophone Canadians tend to identify the Canadian nation with English-Canadian society, with francophones only as an afterthought. Which might be understandable, since most anglophones know little about French-Canadian society.
Actually, I wouldn’t entirely be against what you hope to avoid: accept once and for all that Quebec may be recognized as a nation based mainly on a French-Canadian cultural identity, and the rest of Canada as a nation based mainly on English-Canadian cultural identity. I mean, even though there are linguistic minorities in every province, they are minorities, even if they speak one of the official languages. Then again, maybe you’re right that it wouldn’t be a good idea. More reflection would certainly be needed.
Cunctator, the question of separatist feelings in Western Australia is interesting to me. I had heard that they had previously held a referendum on the question, which was positive but ultimately led to nothing, but I didn’t know that the feelings were still there. I would guess that the main reason for these feelings would be the distance between Western Australia and the other states, and the feeling that the federal power does not represent them correctly. But can you tell me more about this, even though I expect that you don’t actually support this movement? Or can someone from Western Australia tell me more?
This is something I sometimes hear from anglophones, to explain why Quebec by itself should not be seen as a nation: the pure laine – anglophones seem to really like this term, which basically means francophone Quebecers with Caucasian ancestors living in North America since at least before the Conquest – can be seen as a “nation”, because of their real cultural difference, but those who have come to Quebec since then, and continue arriving today, may not be seen as part of this nation. I don’t understand this argument. I said earlier that Quebec national identity should not be based on ethnicity, and that anyone can choose to live here, accept the values of the Quebec nation, and be part of it. So can you clarify your thought?
So francophones were exploited up to the sixties in Canada because they didn’t speak English? :dubious: Sorry, I don’t buy that. I know that today knowledge of English is very important to do business with other countries and with the rest of Canada, but this is not the reason why francophones weren’t equal to anglophones, even inside Quebec. Look at Ireland: the Irish weren’t the equals of the English until they got their independence, and at that time use of the English language was already strongly entrenched in Ireland. In fact, I think we can explain this period in Quebec history in a similar way: francophones were exploited because they were mostly Catholic, while anglophones were, for the most part, Protestant. There really is a difference between the traditional Catholic and Protestant moralities. I don’t really have time to follow up on this now, so I’ll come back later, but I guess you understand what I’m trying to explain.
I think this is to some extent an oversimplification. Yeah, I agree, anglophone Canadians know practically nothing about Quebec’s French-language pop culture. Does that really matter? I’m sure Quebeckers have mostly never heard of local bands from Calgary, either. But you’ll find that there’s a pretty extensive understanding of the role of various francophones in the history of our society. The Prairies are littered with references to the fur traders who opened up the west to European settlement, and to the francophone man who fought for their Metis descendents and was hanged for it, now recognized as having been a great Canadian. Heck, Riel was just in the local news here again last week. (A poem that he wrote just before his execution had come to light and the original manuscript was donated to U of S. Ironically for our discussion the poem in question is the only known poem he wrote in English.) Or try living in Winnipeg for a few years and then come tell me that anglophone Canadians identify the Canadian nation only with English-Canadian society.
I get the impression that a great many Quebeckers see Canada as being comprised of two nations - Quebec and ‘English Canada’. For example I heard Duceppe on the news today saying something like “now we can negotiate, nation to nation.” The thing is, I’m not sure that ‘the rest of Canada’ is a nation, in the sense you mean when you say Quebec is a nation. I’m not sure you can point to a common culture and values, etc, that include the entirety of ‘the rest of Canada’ without also including Quebec and the rest of francophone Canada. You’ve got to understand that, especially out west, most of us are just 3rd or 4th generation Canadians (if that) who identify to some extent or other with a vast, vast array of cultures and linguistic communities. Just in my own small rural community growing up there were substantial communities of Ukrainians, Scots, Mennonites, and yes, French, along with smaller numbers of others. The things that we share that unify us are virtually all also shared with francophone Canadians. It seems like Duceppe’s vision of Canada is two large blobs, one francophone and one anglophone. My vision of Canada is of many various sized blobs, one of which is francophone. There is no unified anglophone blob.
I think that plays a large role in the general hostility to the idea of Quebec as nation that you’ll find out here. The Ukrainians* still think of themselves as Ukrainian - not that they don’t think of themselves as Canadians, don’t get me wrong, but in addition to seeing themselves as Canadian they also see themselves as distinctly Ukrainian - and the Quebecois demand to be seen as a distinct society or whatever is felt as denigrating their Ukrainian-ness. It is felt as saying, in essence, “Our French heritage is important, but your Ukrainian heritage doesn’t matter. You’re just another English Canadian.” Now, I know that that’s not how you feel (though incidentally the use of phrases like ‘English Canada’ or ‘English-Canadians’ does tend to suggest that sort of thing - just look at featherlou’s response). Largely through your posts to various threads on this subject I’ve come to recognize that Quebec society is distinct in ways that other sub-groups in Canada are not, since it’s fairly obvious that the Ukrainian-Canadian community isn’t a nation. But if Quebeckers would like the rest of Canada to recognize their distinctiveness, they’d do well to begin to recognize the distinctiveness of the many parts that make up the rest of Canada
*Ukrainian used only for illustration, the same could be said about many other ethnic communities.
This is a poor analogy, since Quebecois don’t see themselves aren’t distinctly French, since they’re distinctly Québécois. Hundreds of years of history have made them as distinct from the French as Americans and English Canadians are from the English. We’re talking about a developed culture.
A better analogy would be by comparison with Newfoundlanders. Also a distinct society, although not isolated by language. (Although some might argue that point.) They don’t identify as Europeans either, they’re Newfoundlanders, dammit.
We’re talking about cultural identies that are unique to Canada, not “Frenchness” or “Englishness.” This is just linguistic happenstance.
That’s not the point. I’m well aware that the Ukrainian-ness of my neighbours is different from the French-ness (or Quebec-ness if you prefer) of Quebeckers. The point is that “English Canada” is not some unified entity but is rather made up of many different distinct groups who feel that their distinctiveness is being pissed on by Quebeckers even if that feeling is completely unjustified, and that Quebeckers need to understand that if they want to avoid creating resentment in Joe Wazelenchuck from Vegreville.
I’d say you’ve summarised it pretty well severus. I’d guess that it’s a combination of a sense of isolation; of a perception that WA is “ignored” by the eastern states; of irritation that WA taxpayers’ funds (especially in times of booming resource markets such as we currently have) are taken by Canberra for projects that don’t benefit WA. But that’s just my take as an “easterner”. A native Western Australian would certainly give a better insight.
And so is Quebec. We’re a diverse bunch of people and we influence one another. A lot of it is from the French-Canadians, just because of pressure of numbers, but Quebecerness shouldn’t be determined by ethnicity, any more than Canadianness.
Take speaking French. French is our common vehicular language, and that’s not something we need to be of a particular ethnicity for. I remember a friend coming up to Quebec from Texas, and while we’re taking the metro, he overhears a few young women talking, and he says, in complete amazement, “Wow, those Asian girls are speaking French!” Well, of course they are. They’re Quebecers.
Certainly, but (among other reasons) that’s because we’re seven million or so French speakers on a continent of three hundred or so million English speakers.
Sure I like the term. It’s two words that sum up a 15 word phrase. Makes it worthwhile to me, but if you prefer another term, I’ll be happy to use it.
As for accepting the values of a Quebec nation and being accepted, there’s one sticking point. Or perhaps two. The first is that “accepting the values of the Quebec nation” goes hand in hand with separatism. I can accept and internalize 90% of the values of my father in law and my sister in law and her family (both old French-Quebec families) but I’m never going to dream of making Quebec an independent country. Ain’t gonna happen, and thus I’m excluded to a certain degree.
The second is the fact I’m considered an anglophone (okay, my dad is from England, and my mother’s dad is from Scandinavia). This means I get my face rubbed in ethnic bigotry often. Doesn’t matter how often I go to Reveillon, doesn’t matter that my kid goes to a French daycare. I’m English, I speak French with an accent, and to many Quebecois, I’m the “other”.
Is it nice? No way. Is it limited just to family? Nope. I used to travel around the province, and I often got the same attitude when stopping for gas or lunch. I’m a blond-haired blue eyed English speaking man in Canada, but I’m part of a minority. An often ill-treated minority. And there are many people in my home province who won’t let me forget it.
I’m not saying this happens all the time, because if it did, there’s no way I would have moved back here even though Quebec is my home. I grew up here, my family is here, and I left ten years ago and I came back because this is where I want to live and raise my own family. But there is an undercurrent of bigotry in this province that needs to be eliminated, and the sooner the better. Thankfully the aging process seems to be doing this on its own
Half a dozen of one, six of the other. Yes, the Catholic church was a problem, but people were rejecting the Church 200 years ago – check the census records for the 19th century sometime and see how many people said they were divorced, with a husband they hadn’t seen in 10 years. Then see how many monks (who did the census) crossed out that entry and wrote “married”. You could leave the Church, but the Church wouldn’t leave you. It was a factor.
Another was the monied class in Canada. Toronto’s Bay street may be big now, Montreal used to be THE city for wheeling and dealing, and all those corporations were run by anglos sitting pretty in the middle of Quebec. The old cliché was that the top francophone in a factory was the guy who could speak English, and translate to all the working stiffs what the boss said. It’s funny because it’s true.
But language limitations are still a concern in Quebec. Since I moved back, if I had a nickel for every francophone I’ve met who has never left the province, well… I could buy Severus lunch.
I’m kidding, of course, although it might not be entirely false. Personally, all the French people I’ve met have been good people. There are also a lot of links, historical and current, between Quebec and France. This said, some French people – I say “some”, and I’m not talking from personal experience, but rather from impression – seem to have a distorted view of other nations, and especially of other francophone nations. They are France, one of the great nations of the world, known everywhere for their great philosophers, while we’re a bunch of loggers and fur-traders, who speak like loggers and fur-traders. There is a difference between the French languages spoken in Quebec and in France, and in the mind of these French people, the French spoken in Quebec isn’t as good as theirs.