I don’t agree with that; as long as the provinces fall in line with the federal government, there is no problem. As Alberta found out recently, as soon as a province wants to introduce something new into their healthcare delivery that the federal government doesn’t agree with, the federal government threatens their transfer payments (which, in Alberta’s case, is giving our own money back to us). That is not a level of control I’m comfortable with.
As for education, education funding is included in transfer payments. I don’t think we’ve challenged that lately, but I can only imagine that the federal response would be the same to changes in education delivery as is was to changes in healthcare delivery - we’d suddenly find out just how much control the federal government wants to have over a provincial responsibility.
I will admit that English-speaking Canada isn’t as foreign to me as Poland or Germany, because I can speak with the people. But in the same vein the US isn’t all that foreign to me, despite some obvious cultural differences. I don’t see what about English-speaking Canada really makes it my home. And I also think of unilingual francophone Quebecers, for whom the rest of Canada is truly foreign. I know people whose English is actually quite decent, much better than my Spanish to be sure, but who do not want to cross the borders of Quebec because they are afraid to use their English skills; they don’t think they’re good enough. Certainly you will agree that there is a cultural barrier here.
I don’t ignore the rest of Canada, you know. It’d be impossible, and I’m sorry if I gave this impression but I wanted to make a point. This said, I really do think that with other Quebecers, be it francophones or non-francophones who are really in tune with Quebec’s identity, I have an unspoken understanding that simply cannot be shared by other Canadians unless they actually live here for some time, and interact with us, instead of just looking from outside in complete incomprehension. There is a lot to be said for the idea that Quebec society is more communautarian and less individualistic than the rest of Canadian society (which is still much less individualistic than American society). This comes from the fact that French Canadians were for a long time a minority group and had to stick together to keep existing, so it’s become culturally ingrained. This has positive and negative consequences, and leads to serious misunderstandings. I’m of the opinion that this communautarianism is the main reason why Canadians tend to see Quebecers as racist or at least strongly ethnocentric.
Well, I watch American TV and listen to English-language music (including some Canadian) as well, and I’ve noticed that it does cause me to be slightly culturally different from other people near me. For example, I like to watch American movies and TV shows undubbed, which is a format many of them would have a lot of trouble with. And I am (theoretically) federalist as well. But listen. The thing with Quebec anglophones is that traditionally they kept completely separate from the francophone community, which is, remember, the majority. Yes, it is their right to do so, but in that case it’s also my right not to consider that we have much in common. This appears to have become less frequent in the last few decades, and indeed the anglophone you’re describing appears to have at least a cursory knowledge of Quebec, if a bit naive (yes, poutine might be one of the first things Canadians think about when they think of Quebec, but frankly I find the whole concept terribly low class). So yes, I probably have something in common with them. But it also depends on their actions. If they’re going on and on about the racism of Quebecers (which of course would never be tolerated in the rest of the country) and the imminent resurgence of the FLQ, and when pressed would admit that they’re not talking about all Quebecers, only the “separatists”, which they conveniently define in a way that includes 70% of the population, including me, then I believe they obviously don’t trust people like me and don’t want to have me around. If you want to “live and love in this province”, you’ll have to accept that you will meet some of those French Canadians who may not agree that the whole reason they still exist is Canadian compassion and gentleness toward them, who may in fact be strongly critical of anglophone Canadians, and who may intend for Quebec to remain a French-speaking society.
Well let me tell you this. On a blog I read, there was a post by an anglophone Quebecer (actually an American immigrant to Quebec) talking about some or other problem that Quebec is facing right now. And he was actually using “us” and “we” to describe what we should be doing, as if he saw the problem as being partly his fault as well and not just the fault of those French people. I wouldn’t say it shocked me, but I definitely noticed it.
Well that’s nice, but identity isn’t a few political positions which deserve to be debated anyway, nor is it what you call “a few clichés”. These clichés, by themselves, mean nothing, but they serve as “landmarks” on which we tie our identity. Maybe you get teary-eyed when O Canada plays and the maple leaf flag is standing high. I don’t, but I feel something when I see the Quebec flag. These symbols mean nothing by themselves, but we have something invested in them.
Well as I’ve said, we can’t ignore the rest of the country since much of what affects us will be decided in common with it. And I think that’s quite reasonable. (But Loft Story?! Really? That’s not even a Quebec creation, it’s just a version of Big Brother! God, Quebecers must seem so trashy to you. ;))
All I personally want is a recognition that Quebec is the national territory of the French-speaking nation in Canada, which means that we have the right to maintain it as a French-speaking nation. Yes, people will speak other languages here, yes, we will recognize an English-language minority with the right to run their publicly funded education system, but we will expect French to be the common language of work and business here, and we will expect people who move here to learn to be able to communicate in it to a certain level. Yes, despite the fact that English is now the world’s lingua franca so using French is just a hassle, yes, even if anglophones have been here for 250 years so they’re established and anyway Quebec is part of Canada, a bilingual country. We cannot force everyone to recognize this, and anyway we wouldn’t want to, but to a certain level we can require some level of French service in businesses, or offer incentives for immigrants to learn French. And all this doesn’t make us racists.
Sure it may be a disfavour to them, but we have no choice. I don’t think I should be considered a minority in my own country, and that’s what I am if we want to have a pan-Canadian “French Canadian” identity. Anyway, from what I know of francophone minorities in Canada, most of them do not really identify with Quebecers. Their identity, the way they see Canada, is mostly English Canadian. As I’ve said, should we include Americans of French Canadian ancestry as well? Many of them still speak French. I think North American francophones should have a territory that is “home”.
Don’t worry, it’ll never happen. But in case it did, which it won’t, I can’t tell you what to decide. You wouldn’t be the only person with mixed loyalties. The fact that Quebec independence would cause some major problems which are quite obvious to anyone who looks at it, but is still a popular opinion, held by some very intelligent people, should be enough to demonstrate that we have an identity which is deeply held and which is perceived as being in opposition to the pan-Canadian identity. This is what I’m talking about here.
I spent a few hours writing this post, and now I should have been in bed for a long time, so I’ll answer the rest of you another time. As I’ve said, I’m not ignoring any of you, but writing these posts takes a lot of time, especially since I’m a perfectionist.
Again, you think Culture=Language. I’ll agree that Language can separate people into separate cultures, but two people of different languages can also have essentially the same culture.
I don’t doubt that Quebec culture tends to be more collectivist than the rest of Canada. It is also true that there are parts of Canada that run to collectivist whether that be by region or by generation. I think people in my generation tend to be more individualistic than younger people and Albertans tend to be more individualistic than the ROC, but less so than Americans. One of the great things about Canadians is that we’re pretty flexible.
And this isn’t happening now? What more do you want?
Hmmmm… let’s see if we can bridge the huge Gulf some people think exists in Canada based on the regional differences.
Ok for all of you Canadians see if any of these have a sense of familiarity to you, or do they seem completely foreign:
Robin hood flour (can you picture the yellow package)
The definition of a hat trick
A childhood memory of returning home in the dark of winter after tobogganing and the feeling of snow balling up on wollen mits and that cold ring around the top of your boots (you know the stuff that always lay around the floor mat when you come in
A Snow day
The CBC…
Scraping off a windsheild
Maple Syrup
Being pissed off that other provinces get more than you do because teh federal government has preferential treatment for everyone but you.
Mixing imperial and metric measurements Do you weigh yourself in pounds buy food by the
killogram, check your height in feet your distaces in Kilometers and your weather in celsius.
Can you feel the difference between 20 degrees and -10 just by hearing the tempature.
Have you ever found that when it is 12 degrees in Autumn you bundled up and in spring you shed your jacket?
Do you take your shoes off when you enter a home without being asked?
Do you brag about your health system to an non Canadian then bitch how awful it is to your fellow countrymen?
the Hockey night in Canada theme.
A saturday watching a game and the parents order pizza.
The joy of walking out in the sun inm the spring after a long grey winter
I was in Yemen a few months ago helping one of my employees use Google Earth. I showed him how to use it to measure the area of farmland in a disputed area to the north of his village. The two families involved were shooting everything up to 6" mortars at each other because they were disputing a grazing area for goats. We figured out that the family claiming to have less farmland actually had more than the other family. We managed to stop what could have been a very tragic situation. The area in dispute was a couple of acres and yet they were willing to kill each other over it. If there is one thing I can say I’ve done that was worthwhile while in Yemen for the past 8 years, this will be it. Frankly, I find Hypnagogic Jerk’s concern about the differences in culture between Canadians to be rather lame in comparison.
You’re not listening to me. I’m describing something that was discussed all over Quebec a few years ago: a young Sikh boy wanted to brink his kirpan to school, arguing that his religious beliefs require him to have it on him at all times. It doesn’t cost you anything to have him bring it, and it wouldn’t cost you anything to forbid it either, but at the same time you would allow someone to bring a dangerous instrument to school, possibly creating a precedent. So what do you do?
I’m just now buying that the reason why a large proportion of Canada’s population speaks French today is that English speakers willed it. It may be in line with how anglophone Canadians want to see themselves; compassionate, open-minded and “nice” – that’s a word we hear a lot – but it’s clear to me that if there are people in Canada who speak French, it’s because they themselves kept it going, and in a sense, despite the rest of Canada rather than thanks to it. Your comment about Mandarin is entirely theoretical, because whether or not it becomes a major international language some day, you know it’s not tomorrow that you’ll have to learn it to do your job – in Canada anyway, because I understand that your job takes you across the world and may require you to use a few languages – or to go buy food or clothes.
Listen, I know people like you aren’t going to beat up francophones in the streets or prevent them from getting jobs, or even stop them from speaking their language among themselves in public. I may criticise Canadians, but I know that they are for the most part a tolerant and freedom-loving people. So what are you saying I should do? I’m not sure I understand you: you think I should put pressure on you to offer greater official recognition to Albertan francophones (including more government services in their language) because otherwise you won’t do it, but from an ethical standpoint you think you should? I mean, do as you think you should; I’m not here to order you around. And I know that if I did what you suggest, you’d then complain about the cost of English-French bilingualism (which is mostly useless in Western Canada) and how it’s only done to appease Quebecers – and I’d be the one who’d have put pressure on you, so you’d be right – but they won’t even make English an official language of their province. So I’d pass for an angry hypocrite.
I’m probably misunderstanding, but it seems to me that you’re trying to have me fit into some “French Canadian from Quebec” box but find out that my opinions don’t match what you think they should be, so instead of trying to understand them, you’re telling me what I should be thinking if I weren’t selfish. That would make me easier to understand for you, but it would also make me a hypocrite. So what am I supposed to do?
We don’t “inflict” anything on anyone. We’re trying to maintain Quebec as a French-language society, since it’s the only place in North America where we can be at home. This means not merely being allowed to speak French, but actually being able to expect that it’s going to be the language of our daily interactions. Not having to go everyday speaking a foreign language. But when we even express the idea that people who come live in Quebec should learn French, we’re called bigots. So to answer your question in another post:
No, it’s not really happening now. We want you to recognize that we consider this territory, Quebec, to be our national home, and that we won’t accept the status of a mere minority here. But we want you to trust us: we’re also doing quite well at respecting the rights of our minorities, and if problems arise, we can solve them.
Honestly, I’m not sure how you can in the same breath claim that culturally, we’re all extremely similar (and yes, I agree that compared to, say, some Middle-Eastern cultures that you’ve experienced, our differences are minor) and blame us for “inflict[ing] language laws on other Canadians”. Hey, if we’re always doing stuff that you wouldn’t dream of doing, then we’re not the same at all, right?
I’m not sure I follow: what is this “that” that you’re not currently doing but could do, and which would make us angry? I’m honestly asking what you have in mind.
The only thing I’m feeling entitled to is a place for my national group to call home. Something that you do have.
(Bolding mine)
Can I get the Canadian fascination for Tim Hortons explained, please? And are you really fascinated by this restaurant, or is it just some kind of joke? I mean, I buy doughnuts there because I like the stuff, but to me it’s not an affirming cultural experience. I could as well go to Dunkin Donuts.
No problem there. But at the same time, mnemosyne was taking me to task for supposedly denying my anglophone side, and our own Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, once blamed Quebecers for knowing too little about the other provinces of Canada. I’m quite certain it was only a tactic designed to curry favour in anglophone Canada after she was attacked for supposedly being a “separatist”, but I don’t understand why we can be expected to “open ourselves” to the rest of Canada, while it’s not necessary for other Canadians.
And it may be surprising, but country-western stuff is quite popular in some parts of Quebec. Just don’t listen to French-language country music. :eek:
Canada’s official language minorities are constitutionally guaranteed public education in their language. Maybe there’s a “where the numbers justify it” clause somewhere in there, but it’s a federal requirement over education. One with which I kind of agree.
The federal government controls a large part of the provinces’ budget, and has been known in the past for meddling with what are officially provincial responsibilities. We can argue that this depends on which federal government we elect, but this should show why Quebec sends so many Bloc MPs to Ottawa.
Language is a large part of it. It determines who you speak with, what you read, what you hear, how you see the world. It’s not surprising that in many parts of the world, your native language defines which ethnic group you belong to. It’s a link that’s stronger than blood.
Sorry, this was discussed in BC years ago, too. I think they allowed it. Personally, as an atheist, I think if you are required to do something that is outside the current laws based upon your religion you should bring your GOD to the court room and have him explain why it is necessary for you to do whatever it is you are doing. I mean if it is so important then your GOD should have no problem defending you. Otherwise, keep your damn knife at home when you go to school and wear a helmet on your motorcycle like every one else has to.
I’d guess that first of all, you can find a Tim Hortons pretty much anywhere in Canada. It’s something we all have in common. I’ve never seen a Dunkin Donuts west of Ontario; I’ve never seen a Coffee Time Donuts outside of Ontario. But I have been to Tim Hortons in pretty much every province.
Secondly, it’s definitely ours. Unlike other fast-food chains (except Harvey’s), Tim Hortons was started by a Canadian who was also a hockey player (double Canadian points!). Although it has now joined up somehow with the American Wendy’s, Tim Hortons still has most of its locations in Canada.
And thirdly, their coffee and food is pretty good.
Personally I don’t have much of a problem with Sikhs not wearing a motorcycle helmet because it wouldn’t fit over their turban, since they’re only endangering themselves. But now that you mention that, it did cause me to think that it causes a precedent (why must I wear a helmet since I’m an atheist, but they’re allowed not to since they’re Sikhs?), and that people not using safety equipment might increase the costs to our public healthcare system. Or reduce them, since they’d kill themselves instead of only injuring themselves. So I’d allow this, but I’m not sure how I’d manage to argue in court that Sikhs are allowed a dispensation to this law, but it shouldn’t apply to anyone else. Thankfully I’m not a lawyer.
But the kirpan case is different since it creates a dangerous precedent. Teachers were overwhelmingly against it, not to mention most of the population of Quebec. I think there was a suggestion to allow it after rendering the kirpan unusable as a knife, but this wasn’t acceptable to the boy or his parents. It was eventually allowed as well. Personally I’m not sure what I think of this case. I think I’m leaning towards forbidding it. And not for bigoted or racist reasons.
But while I know that you’re joking, of course it’s not reasonable to expect someone’s god to come speak in a courtroom. To start with, many religions do not recognize a god but still expect their adherents to follow some practices, many cultural practices are not actually religious in nature, and many legal accommodations are done for reasons that aren’t actually cultural. We’re talking, for example, about accessibility requirements for the handicapped.
See, you think we are of a different culture, but we are in total agreement here. Fancy that.
And I’m not joking. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that a person claiming to speak the words of GOD to have some proof that those words are in fact the words of GOD. If they can’t pony up then too bad. If I make outrageous claims that are not religious based, then I’m expected to provide proof. But just because I may have eaten a bit of underdone potato and while delirious have visions that I think are from god, and then convince a bunch of others that those vision are true, then I gain some credence that allows me to flout society’s rules?