I’d agree with tom, but I have to pretend that Valteron sees that he is Sticking it to the Man. 
The OP has often demonstrated contrarian tendencies, and though I can hardly imagine why he can still consider himself a Federalist (considering), he raises questions for which the answers are enlightening. Regardless of how hard a neutral observer might object. (I kept that last part within the rules, right? )
What I find so interesting about the whole thing is how little “coverage” the Plains Of Abraham battle has outside Canada.
I mean, I have a great deal of interest in the history of the British Empire, and despite being an Important And Influential Battle That Determined The Future Of Canada, it doesn’t get a lot of attention devoted to it in “popular history”.
Admittedly, my focus is on the Victorian British Empire, and more specifically their involvement in Africa, India, and the South Pacific, but even so, the amount of reference material I have on the Battle of The Plains Of Abraham amounts to a paragraph or two in a few History Of The British Empire type books.
Compare that to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 (which was of no strategic value to the British whatsoever beyond reminding an African tribe who was boss), which has been the subject of at least two feature films, several History Channel Documentaries, countless books (including two highly respected works by Donald Morris and Saul David), and provided the backdrop for several novels and adventure stories.
So it is more than a little disconcerting to see people getting so worked up over a battle that was A) 250 years ago, B) Shaped their country, and C) Isn’t really regarded as that big a deal in the popular imagination.
As others have pointed out, re-enactors dress up as Confederate Soldiers (thoroughly lost the US Civil War), German soldiers (Runners-up in WWII), French soldiers of the Napoleonic Era (you’ll recall France was beaten in the Napoleonic Wars), and in pretty much any other military re-enactment you care to name, there are people that will dress up as the “Losing” side, as it’s all in fun and at the end of it they can crack open a cold drink and have a laugh together about what a fun day they’ve had.
I’m not well versed in the delicate political situation in Canada vis a vis Anglophones and Francophones, but all I can say is that if there are people in the Southern US who will dress up as Johnny Rebel and re-enact major US Civil War battles with no hard feelings towards the Damnyankees, then I’m astounded that a 250 year old battle (in which less than 200 soldiers died and lasted about an hour) is still such a “hot button” topic in Canada.
Shouldn’t the Francophones remember and be proud of the valiant defence mounted by their ancestors? Sure, they lost, but they gave it their best and it still took the British nearly another half-decade to finish “acquiring” New France afterwards. The re-enactment of the battle doesn’t have to be a painful reminder that the British Were Horrible To The French A Long Time Ago, unless people choose to make it so for political purposes- and that would, I respectfully submit, be a rather counterproductive approach to take to the whole thing.
For most of us it isn’t. I grew up in BC, so pretty much the entire rest of the country could have fallen into the Atlantic for all we cared. I had never heard a Newfie joke until I moved to Alberta when I was 18.
Some people are touchy for no rational reason. I once asked a guy, who I understood was from Newfoundland, what Newfoundland was like. He got very bent out of shape saying he wasn’t from Newfoundland, but from Labrador.:rolleyes: First of all it was a polite question. Second of all, I had no idea there was a difference as my home was 2500 miles away from there and the niceties of hillbilly culture wasn’t brought up in school. Thirdly, after his reaction, I could have cared less about the difference. At that point all I wanted to do was poke the stick some more.
But where I live, Uzi, Canadians mostly speak French. And in some places, Canadians only speak French. The West isn’t the whole of Canada. We do have two major founding nations, even if in some places one of them is barely present.
Unless we want to completely drop the idea of Canada being a united country.
wolfstu: by bilingual enclaves I didn’t mean a few street blocks in some cities. I did include Northern Ontario as one of these enclaves. I’m mostly thinking of Moncton, Montreal, Ottawa and the National Capital Region, Northern Ontario (probably from Timmins to Sault Ste. Marie) and maybe parts of Winnipeg, though I think that’s changed today. Those are the places in Canada where both official languages can be said to coexist with a “co-majority” status, and unsurprisingly it often causes problems. I grew up in Gatineau, just north of Ottawa on the Quebec side of the river, and I’ve seen it.
Okay. So your comment wasn’t a commentary on the cultural value of French-speaking Canadians today, but just a reflection on the past. But honestly, Captain Amazing, in which way are Canada’s problems so serious? I don’t believe they are. Even if we do have conflicts, it’s never reached the level of widespread violence (except during the Acadians’ deportation, and that was during an actual war). There are other multinational countries in the world so Canada isn’t a unique case. And Canada is improvable.
This said, you’re right that at the time of the Conquest Canada’s population was very small, so it’s unlikely that in the next decades cities would have sprung up all across Western Canada if it had remained French. But even without the Conquest, I’m quite sure the British would have had no problems moving into inoccupied territory west of Canada. And remember that in the early 19th century some French speakers (and Scots) did move to what is now Western Canada. This is what led to the presence of a number of Métis over there at the time of the Confederation.
But do remember that France remained an independent country after the Napoleonic Wars, and Germany eventually regained independence after World War II. The American Civil War did lead to the destruction of the Confederacy’s independence, but since it was a very new country anyway, and since the war was fought for questionable reasons (preserving slavery), people may not have much sympathy for that time.
After the Conquest, the French-speaking Canadiens stopped having their own country, they were subjugated for a long time and even today they’re seen by many as a minority in their own country or even their own province. I know many people in this thread are claiming the Conquest “saved” the Canadiens by removing them from under French absolutism and paving the way for a democratic Canada. That is of course what they learned, because from their standpoint the Conquest was a victory. From my standpoint it was most definitely a defeat, even though I try to look at it in the most objective way possible, and one that led to the subjugation of my people. Remember that most nations would rather be independent than democratic. Better to be ruled by your own tyrants (and I wouldn’t say New France was “tyrannical”) than by democrats who don’t speak your language and mostly don’t care about you.
Unfortunately, not that I know of.IIRC, there was a BBC doccie made, you might be able to find that. Or contact one of the British groupsthat participated, they may have vid.
See what I mean? It’s all about you. Never mind that the rest of us might have an entirely different perspective on things.
Take a look at those demographics again on the three most western provinces. The combined total of English and French never goes above 40%. Throw some Scottish in there and you get over 50%, but what about all those other people? They don’t count? This is why your two founding nations shtick is just that. Canada, at least in the West, isn’t just about two nations. It is more than that. Can you understand that?
Every time I hear this two founding nations garbage, I hear US vs. THEM. Understand that I don’t see you as THEM. I see you as US. I have a problem with those who keep wanting to be THEM.
I see this point, although I would counter that the people of New France did not “stop” having their own country so much as they had an exchange of distant ownership. Rather than “their own country,” the best they might have expected would have been the path of Martinique or Guadeloupe while lesser futures would have included that of Florida and California or, at best, Mexico.
Beyond the history, the way I see it is that despite claims of Canada being a cultural patchwork, those “others” have integrated into one of two cultures. I, myself am an emigrant. I still identify as a French Canadian but there’s no question that I have integrated in my host culture. The Saskatchewan Ukrainian and the Montreal Vietnamese have more in common, culturally, with “English” and “French” Canadians respectively than they do with each other. In that sense, the two nations are cultural attractors. Of course, the French and English cultures are shaped by those they attract, but I do not believe that Canadian multiculturalism is such that the distinction between the French and the English Canada is yet irrelevant.
Of course not. French makes up a sizable minority in Canada. Luckily it is concentrated in an area like Quebec otherwise it would be subsumed. Valetron was complaining that Quebec does all sorts of things to keep Anglophones happy in Quebec while other provinces tend not to for French. Yet, English is the 2nd most spoken language in Quebec and is spoken by quite a few French native speakers, too.
The reverse isn’t true in some other parts of the country. Yet, we still provide services, albeit on a limited basis, for French speakers more so than other groups which comprise a far higher percentage of the population.
And I just wish you would participate in the debate like the others are doing instead of venting your dislike of me every time I open my mouth.
Have I SPOKEN to one of them? I was born in Ontario in 1948 and schooled in Ontario in English. The schools in Ontario that I saw flew union jacks (not even the red enseign), sang “God save the Queen” every morning. The adjective “Canadian” was rarely used. It was the “Dominion” Prime Minister, the Dominion Parliament, etc.
I honestly did not see the emergence of something I could call an anglo-Canadian identity until the 1960s.
Yes, but I was responding to your comment about “us” and “them” and where the “others” fit in all that. This was a response to Hypnagogic Jerk’s reply to your comment that the concept of founding nations meant nothing to you and should be left in the past. However, I hold that these two nations are still very much real, and very much relevant, regardless of multiculturalism.
There are two dominant cultures, for sure. Is it important that they were founding nations? Not so much, at least from where I’m standing. We don’t say you must conform to our culture. It is up to the person to do so as much as they wish. Now if you come from darkest Africa and are the only person in the province who speaks ‘Click, click’, then you’ll probably have to learn the local tongue to get served down at the neighbourhood choke and puke. It would be up to him, of course.
Heck, I’m just annoyed by recent-decade dickishness that the use of language in business must be determined by law, rather than the marketplace itself.
How condsecendingly kind of you, Tom. If my presence is THAT negative a factor and since I apparently have nothing to contribute, I will do you a favour and stay out of my own thread. I will let you and all the other good and reasonable people carry on the debate. I will read what the others post, though, since the subject still interests me. But as long as I have to deal with your irrational hostility at every turn, it is really no fun participating in this debate.
“People” may not, but there are a great many southerners who are proud of their heritage and who view the defeat of the confederacy as a tragedy and will insist that the war was not fought to preserve slavery. You may not agree, but that is a sincerely held belief. And those proud-of-their-heritage kind of guys are exactly the sort that are also re-enactors.
This may be a hijack, but you may be interested to note, Martini, just how little everything you just mentioned is studied here, and how little our books and documentaries say about it. The History of the British Empire, such as you describe, has very little attention paid to it–we learn that the pink bits on the map are the Empire (that big pink bit at the bottom is Australia, where the British sent convicts), and there used to be a lot more pink bits in Africa (this one at the very bottom is South Africa, where there was a war of some sort and Winston Churchill was involved somehow), and of course, this big pink bit is India (wasn’t Gandhi from there?). And that’s about it. I doubt very many Canadians can tell you when or how Australia was founded, or the names of the people involved; or any details on African Zulu wars; or on anything else you mentioned. Sad to say, none of those are big deals in the Canadian popular imagination.
We study our history. Some of us were lucky enough to get a year of British history (I was one such, and the course of study took us from 1066 to the Victorian age, but always the focus was on Britain, not its Empire); and we must necessarily intersect with American history at various points. But even outside of school, our homegrown documentaries tend to be on Canadian history, and our TV channels show them. In a twist on your observation, I’ll admit that I myself have plenty of books on Canadian history (including the Battle of the Plains of Abraham), but nothing on the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879.
The Battle of the Plains of Abraham isn’t a big deal to you in Australia who seem to be both able and encouraged to learn the History of the British Empire, but we are not formally exposed to such studies, and few students are interested. (Although some of us enjoy studying other histories on our own.) Between this and the heavy focus on Canadian history of all types, the Battle remains an important point in all Canadian students’ history education; and continues to be contentious among Canadians.
Well, Canada is certainly not Bosnia or anything like that. The Riel Rebellion and FLQ aside, Canada’s ethnoregional differences have mostly been peaceful, which is all to the credit of Canada’s free and democratic system. But still, in the past 30 years, it’s led to Canadians not thinking of themselves as one nation but as two, widespread Anglophone resentment of Quebec’s special status and the willingness of the Ottawa to support that (see Meech Lake and Charlottetown), and two referendums that, had they passed, would have destroyed the country. Sure, Canada is improvable, and I have faith in Canadians to improve the country. But it can cause a headache sometimes.
Ontario’s French Language Services Act guarantees the right to services in French from the provincial government in government offices in designated areas of the province. You can see a map and list of these areas here.
I’m unsure what you’re getting at with “not necessarily meaning anything.” This Act and subsequent policy created quite a bit of controversy in Ontario when it occurred–all of a sudden, the majority of Ontarians realized that (a) they were going to be shut out of any opportunity at Ontario government jobs, owing to their lack of French-language skills; and (b) they were going to have to pay more for it (it cost plenty to reprint government forms, replace road signs, teach existing government workers French, and so on). The average Ontarian’s real resentment, though, came from Quebecers’ attitudes such as you just expressed: it doesn’t mean anything, it’s symbolic, big deal. To Ontarians, they were making a big and expensive effort to be inclusive of Canada’s other founding people–and all Quebecers did was to dismiss their efforts with a metaphorical wave of the hand.
If you want to know where the ROC’s feeling of “whatever Quebec wants, they get; and what they get is never enough” comes from; well, this is one example.
There were many progressive Ontarians who congratulated themselves for finally growing up and joining the 21st century after implementing the above (even though it was the mid-90s). To them, it was most definitely not a symbolic gesture, but an actual effort backed by deeds to prove to Quebec that at least one other Canadian province could be inclusive enough to meet the needs of Canada’s Francophones. I guess the effort failed.
I’m merely pointing out that some of us have a different perspective than you on this country. To you French speakers are merely a minority, and not a really important one, but to me they’re a majority group. There’s not a single Canada.
jovan’s explained why this concept of two founding nations is still important even though Canada’s more multicultural than it used to be. I feel this is a common misunderstanding.
Okay, I guess we can say that they’ve never had their own country, and the Conquest made it less likely that they would. (Interesting note: the last governor of New France, Pierre de Rigaud Vaudreuil, was actually the first Canadian-born governor of Canada.)
Spoons, honestly, I don’t care at all what the other Canadian provinces do with their francophone minorities. It needs to be said because I feel this is another common misunderstanding. English Canadians seem to think that official bilingualism, public services for their French-language minorities, etc., are all outstreched arms to Quebec. They might even have been right if these gestures had been done a generation earlier when there was still talk of a pan-Canadian French-Canadian nation. But since the 50s or 60s Quebecers’ identity is inextricably tied to the territory of Quebec. Francophone minorities just don’t fit anywhere in this; they can be a good rhetorical device but nobody really cares about them. Maybe it’s unfortunate but that’s the way it is.
Today what Quebec wants has nothing to do with these minority francophones. As I’ve said, what you do with them won’t raise more than a few eyebrows in Quebec; they’re all assumed to be semi-assimilated and pretty much the last of their kind to speak French anyway. (And in a way this isn’t untrue.) No, what Quebec wants is a recognition of its status as the homeland of one of the two founding nations (the whole rest of the country being the homeland of the other; well, okay, except maybe Nunavut), with the powers in term of culture and language that this necessitates.
Believe me, it doesn’t matter what efforts Canadians make to show francophones that they’re at home in this country; every time I cross the Ottawa River I consider myself in foreign territory and act in consequence. This includes speaking English which is your common language; it’s the least I can do to respect the fact that this is your homeland. And I’m from Gatineau, I studied at the University of Ottawa, so I’m especially aware of the fact that there are francophones in Ontario. So you can guess that the vast majority of Quebecers have the same attitude as me, only moreso.
No, Spoons, nothing you can do will, as you say, “prove to Quebec that at least one other Canadian province could be inclusive enough to meet the needs of Canada’s Francophones.” This ship has sailed sometime during the 60s and it’s not coming back, and today Quebecers don’t care anyway. The other provinces don’t have to be inclusive to francophones: they’re not the francophones’ homeland.
ETA: I must even admit that I didn’t like it much when I heard that premier of Quebec Jean Charest wanted to strengthen links with francophone minorities in other provinces. Strengthening cultural links is acceptable (it’s good for Quebecers to know about Canadian literature in French, for example), but we’re not the francophones’ uncle and they wouldn’t want it anyway. We must respect the other provinces’ right to set their official language if we want them to respect ours, and we must not allow ourselves to revert back to a “minority” status by joining hands with minorities.