I have a friend who works for the federal government and travels across Canada speaking to groups about a government program. The hand-out documents are printed in English or French depending on what language the speech will be given in. But the cover/folder with the government logo on it has the name of the program written in English and French. The material inside is French or English depending on where you go, of course.
My friend reports that whenever he offers the folder in Alberta, the first reaction is “I don’t want it in FRENCH!!!” as if you were offering them shit on a stick. To which my friend patiently explains that the folder cover is bilingual and the material inside is 100% English.
Guess what? Nothing equivalent has ever happened to him when he offers the same folder to French-speaking people in Quebec (with French documents inside, of course. Nobody draws back in horror and says “I don’t want it in ENGLISH”.
I started by saying that Quebecers would justifiably find offensive to have someone come into Quebec and celebrate their Conquest as if it were something wonderful.
I sarcastically suggested that the same anglo-Canadians who wanted to do that should try celebrating the Battle of the Boyne in Dublin on July 12.
If your “logic” meaning your opinions, in fact tells you that I should not feel that way about the Conquest, by all means, please tell me how I ought to feel. I would never have the arrogance to tell Southerners whether or not they should be offended by civil war re-enactments. But apparently you have aroogated yourself the right to tell me how to feel.
The problem being, of course, that most Canadians likely see it as a defining moment in the creation of a country that is neither French nor British. Why Quebecers (regardless of any pedigree by decent) would frame it as a defeat is its own fascinating question. The British defeated the French, the French abandoned a colony and Canada grew from that historic pivot point.
Actually, the only interesting thing in this thread was the fact that Laurier as PM is considered to be a non-entity in Quebec. Well that and that possibly his 4 consecutive governments were the result of a spasm token appeasement by non-French speaking Canadians.
Other provinces are “de facto” English-speaking because … wait for it … that’s what the vast majority of the people there speak! They do not, however, make a deliberate point of enshrining a single language as official. Only Quebec does that.
Thus, Nemo was entirely correct, and your snotty “check your facts” condescension only highlights your own ignorance and (quite literal) provincialism.
Appeasement? Voting for an Anglo Prime Minister is a normal democratic exercise, of course, but voting for a French-Canadian is appeasement. It cannot possibly be based on the fact that the person in question offers policies or ideas that the voters prefer can it? If the winning candidate is a member of a minority, it must be token appeasement. Everybody got that?:dubious:
The more I think about this, and the more I find it offensive. At first I thought it was just saying that Canada’s (ultimately minor, in the grand scheme of things) problems would be lesser if everyone spoke the same language, which is of course true. But we could equally wish that after the Conquest the British colonists had adopted French as their language (since it was already the language of Canada), or that the Conquest hadn’t happened at all, and I don’t believe this is what you’re suggesting. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but are you singling out French-speaking Canadians as a nation that “shouldn’t have existed” (all the while not suggesting that they should disappear now, of course)? And if so, why?
I spend a lot of time trying to understand Canada. It really isn’t an easy country to get a grasp of, and I wish more of us (especially those of us who are Canadians) would make the effort. People don’t act the way they do “just to be jerks” or because they’ve been brainwashed or whatnot. We all have our legitimate complaints regarding this country.
As a Canadian, it is entirely my right to make my opinion known about the way Canada is running. And believe me Uzi, you don’t pay taxes to me.
Also:
Sorry Little Nemo, but that doesn’t give you any special insight about modern Quebec or about how Quebecers should be acting. You’re an American; you get your information about Canada mainly from sources in English that ultimately have an English Canadian bias. I’m certainly not free of bias, but I do have a different bias and I do hope that you take what I’m saying here and in other threads seriously and use it to build your idea of Canada.
Same goes for silenus who likes to point out that he’s got French ancestry as he mocks the French (or French Canadians, it’s all the same). I don’t have any problem with you mocking other nationalities, it’s not my kind of humour but to each his own, but having French blood doesn’t give you any special insight into the French mind and it won’t stop me from pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about when you conflate the French and French-speaking Canadians as if both were the same nation.
I thought I’d recently read (probably in Trudel, again; to everyone, if you think you know Canada and its history, read his books!) about the siege of Quebec in 1759, which left the city badly damaged, and the reason he went to meet the British troops, but I can’t find it in my book. It was probably in some other one, and since I’m in Berlin right now I don’t have access to them. I’ll try to find them in a few days when I’ll be back home, but I’m quite sure it’s not as simple as you say, ralph.
Hmm, sorry, what? I’m not agitated; I’m just explaining Canada from my own viewpoint, which is I’m quite certain one the Americans aren’t exposed to very often.
The other provinces do not need to make a point of enshrining English as official. The hostility to French in those provinces ensures that they will remain unilingual. I know, I have been there and lived there. Nothing like making necessity a virtue.
Personally I don’t care either way. The Battle is of historical significance to both English and Francophone Canadians. A reenactment, in itself, isn’t necessarily a celebration, though some Yahoos might want to view it as such. I can see where some might think that it is some way of celebrating conquest.
Now I imagine that both battles would have been reenacted. Including the second in which the colonists were able to take back the city from the English before being abandoned by France.
It can be used as a starting point of discussion about the history of our peoples.
It is also one of those great touristy things that generate revenue and bring in the people.
The more I think of this conversation the more I wonder why there should be a continued belief that there is a conquered people in Canada when in fact Quebec was a founder of the Nation and many Quebecois have been part of the Federal government in all the roles.
I understand the history prior to the Quiet revolution in which the average Quebec Francophone was treated as a second class citizen in their home province by an English Minority.
That has since changed. A lot has happened in 40 years to correct that problem. To act as if repression or victimization is still a threat is silly.
Pointing to a few yahoos who say racist pig headed garbage and declaring that is what the ROC thinks is nonsense. And please don’t pretend you don’t have people in your province making disparaging remarks or is Tête-carée a term of endearment?
But I think the worst problem I can see is to continue to teach the mindset of being a conquered people which doesn’t seem to serve anyones interest. What is the point of teaching people to feel like victims when that is no longer the case?
It’s still undoubtedly true that English is much more present in Quebec (including in its public administration, despite it being officially unilingual) than French is in the other provinces, other than the Acadian regions of New Brunswick and a few bilingual enclaves (which are usually scenes of linguistic conflict).
I’ve often heard English Canadians mention that Canada is “bilingual” while Quebec is “only French”, but that’s not true in any meaningful sense.
I don’t think so. Most Canadian provinces haven’t declared an official language, but I’d be very surprised if you could communicate with them in any language, let alone get an answer from them in any language. I haven’t checked how it works in practice, though.
Nitpick: Quebec made French its official language in 1977. I don’t know how you feel about it, but let me just say there was a reason for it.
I don’t think I understand your point.
Canada today is built around a linguistic duality. Or I should say “should be” because one of my biggest beefs with English-speaking Canada is that they often see us as a restless and ungrateful minority (basically a bunch of spoiled brats, with the infantilization that it implies) instead of another founding people like them. And this isn’t only theoretical, it does have implications in actual policies. But I don’t think most Canadians would see the Conquest as a defining moment in the creation of the country. Most Canadians don’t know that much about history. On another board I’ve discussed with someone who’s told me that he’s met actual university students who didn’t understand why francophone Canadians insisted for their language to be a language of Canada instead of just adopting English like the other immigrants. Those people (despite their education) just didn’t know that the French presence in Canada predated the English presence.
But even if we want to celebrate this duality – I think it makes most Canadians just shrug their shoulders – the Conquest isn’t the right event to remember. I’d rather go with 1791, 1848, or maybe even 1867, why not. For as long as Canadians identify with one or the other parties present on the Plains of Abraham, it will needlessly place one group above the other.
I didn’t say Laurier is a non-entity in Quebec, I just said that according to Trudel’s research, in school manuals from the first part of the 20th century, he is lionized in English-language manuals but barely mentioned in French-language manuals. And I offered an explanation for why this could be the case. To be honest I can’t tell you much about Laurier other than he became prime minister in 1896, had some policies which I don’t know much about but were probably on the (classical?) liberal side of things (free trade maybe?), lost power in 1911 but remained in opposition and joined with French Canadian nationalist in 1917 to oppose conscription, leading to most of his caucus from outside Quebec joining with the Conservatives. I’m sure he was important at the time, having been prime minister for so long, but I don’t consider him a prime builder of Canada.
Do you believe my explanation might be somewhat accurate? How is Laurier viewed where you are? Do people even know about him? Is he mentioned in schools? And most importantly, if so, how is he mentioned in schools?
I do believe English Canadians tend to be very proud of their country’s openness to minority cultures. That’s why they mention the “mosaic” and contrast it with the American “melting pot” (“here, immigrants can maintain their culture, they don’t have to dump it!”); that’s why they tend to be proud of their government’s multicultural policies. And I believe they include official bilingualism and having people from Quebec in important positions as symbols of openness to “minority” cultures. From this paradigm, Laurier as prime minister as early as 1896 is certainly an important symbol.
And they honestly don’t understand why people in Quebec can’t see that and celebrate this great country with them. I try to explain Canada from another angle.
Yes, the hostility is astounding. It is apparent that you think Alberta is particularly hostile, so let’s take a closer look at that province. We should start with Edmonton, for example, where Francophones deal with such hostility that they enjoy their very own neighbourhood and culture:
Or let’s look at this page from the federal government, which, in addition to other interesting links, states the following:
Yes, Alberta is definitely a province where hostility to French is official policy. :rolleyes:
You are free to have your own opinions, of course, but I doubt that any reasonable person would see the efforts taking place here (and I presume in other provinces) as “hostility to French.”
Actually I’d say that the view of 2 founding nations should be modified to 3* - but we’re having more than enough trouble getting 2 figured out.
That said, I think you and I have batted back and forth the relative impacts of Quebec and its French speaking majority on the development of Canada before and this isn’t (nor do I have the time right now) the thread to run through them again. Suffice to say that I think the impact of Quebec’s impact on the Canada’s evolution is underestimated by most people.
Most people are stupid, I try not to let it slow me down.
Important guy – honest. If you read up on his various political balancing acts you can almost watch the ongoing negotiation that is Canada.
Another reason could be that Laurier was an anti-clerical Liberal, who was opposed at the time by the Church in Quebec. “le ciel est bleu, l’enfer est rouge”, and all that. So it’s possible that early 20th century Quebec school books might have been influenced by that.
Well in fairness, those books were close to the time he was in power and he did have 3 majority governments. From Confederation’s start to Laurier’s loss of power in 1911 (Over free trade… he was for it) Only Laurier and Sir John A. held power for any period of time significant time. Laurier also made some major policies which steered Canada into its own and away from British influence.
Him being the first French Speaking Primeminister probably held sway in that he represented the fact that Confederation worked.
Why the French books had no use for him I don’t know. My wild assed speculation is that it probably lay in the fact that he didn’t steer far enough for their tastes.
