I never had any bad feelings for any of Canada. The people of Quebec can thank their fellow countrymen for a growing association in my mind of Quebec is bad. They make fun of Quebec for it’s french and trying to become it’s own country. The comedians, and other show people, usually show Quebec in that way to other nations. I don’t feel any anemosity against Quebec, but I subconciously think of all the comments from other parts of Canada I’ve heard. The stuff I hear from Quebec about the rest of Canada isn’t nice either. When the family fights the neighbors hear it, and after a while they’ll start to believe it.
Originally, it did, though. Bill 101, when it was passed in 1977, banned outdoor signage in any language other than French (Section 58). That section, when it was passed, said, “Public signs and posters and commercial advertising shall be solely in French”. In 1988, in “Ford v Quebec”, the Supreme Court found this violated the Charter. So, the National Assembly passed the law with the sectionagain, this time with the Notwithstanding Clause (this was one of the things that killed Meech Lake). It wasn’t until 1993 that the section was amended to allow bilingual signage.
Added Fact: After WWII DeGaulle, who was Franch at the time, refused to join NATO and told America, “Thanks, goodby.” (People talk about an exit strategy from Iraq yet it’s been over half a century and we’re still in Germany.)
Answer for the OP:
The arrogance of the French is matched only by the arrogance of Americans. One always hates most one’s traits found in others. Americans think they won the American Revolution but Cornell would not of surrendered if the French fleet was not at his back.
P.S. Dr. Laura said, “France has been our enemy since, like, forever.”
Phys ed majors must not have to take history.
Dr. Laura was not a “phys ed” major. She has a doctorate in physiology. Learn the difference. One of the Nobel Prizes give every year is for “Physiology and Medicine”.
80-year-old sagging men in speedos walking along the beaches…
… just a thought. 
Oh, I know that. Americans consider personal liberty to be their most important value and most governmental intervention in this liberty to be a stepping stone towards fascism. I’m quite liberal myself and I can understand this viewpoint, but other countries have values that sometimes conflict with individual liberty, and putting them in application doesn’t necessarily mean the end of liberal democracy. I think we could compare this to the anti-Nazi laws in Europe. Many European countries have laws that forbid the use of Nazi symbols, because they consider that the stability of their community trumps the right of individual neo-Nazis to wear their symbols. Most Americans don’t understand this, because to them, any curtailment of their individual freedoms is the beginning of fascism. Language laws are similar (yes, I do realise that having commercial signs with no French on them isn’t as “bad” as Nazism, but I think the comparison still has some worth). Quebec, as a community, has decided that it will be a French-speaking society, where business will mostly be conducted in French, but where linguistic minorities (notably anglophones) will still be protected. So we have laws that commercial signs must be mostly in French, that francophones and immigrants from non-English backgrounds must be educated in French until they reach the post-secondary level (to better integrate into the host society), but at the same time the English-speaking community has access to English-language schools, and they can have commercial signs in their language as long as French is prominent.
Actually, I think that this “European” commitment to community over personal freedom, that is also seen in Quebec, might also be part of the reason why Americans are wary of the French. It’s not the only reason, though; Americans don’t seem to dislike Germans as much even though on that point they probably resemble the French, but it might be a factor.
English and French are Canada’s official languages from coast to coast (to coast), at the federal level. This means that the federal government must offer services in both languages, whether you are in Vancouver or Saguenay. Indeed, in the English-speaking provinces, many people are opposed to this policy because it means that unilinguals (most English Canadians are unilingual) have more trouble landing jobs in the federal public service. But of course, francophones must also be bilingual to have these same jobs, even in parts of Quebec where you’ll almost never hear any English. The difference is that the proportion of francophones who are bilingual is larger than the proportion of anglophones who are bilingual, especially in places like Ottawa, where most public service jobs are. Other English Canadians don’t really care about these jobs, but think that it’s a waste of money to have services in French in Alberta (and presumably to have services in English in Saguenay, although I’ve never heard them complain about this).
As for the provinces themselves, New Brunswick is the only province to consider both languages as official at the provincial level. Quebec considers only French as official, and I’m not sure about the other provinces, although I assume that most of them have English as the only de facto official language.
silenus, thanks, it’s good to know that I’ve at least made some difference. 
Captain Amazing, yes, you are correct, bill 101 in its original form banned any non-French outdoor (commercial?) signage. That probably went too far, and it was found unconstitutional. The current version of the law is constitutional with respect to the constitution of Canada, it strikes a good balance between individual freedom and the good of the society. Thanks for reminding me, I wasn’t born when bill 101 was passed, and I was still very young at the end of the 80s, when these language debates were held, so I don’t remember them.
Harmonious Discord, what can I say? There is some animosity between the different peoples of Canada, and of course it leads to bad blood and people having wrong ideas about each other, but all of this happens peacefully. I guess we take your username to heart. 
What I’m trying to do is to correct impressions and allow people to make their mind with a more complete set of data.
A great cartoon from the Vietnam war era showed de Gaulle with his typical gallic sneer asking “Why do you Americans insist on staying where you are not wanted?” In the background is a US war cemetery with white crosses stretching to the horizon.
There might or might not have been a Cornell at the Battle of Yorktown, but I think it was Cornwallis’s decision to surrender that had real historical significance.
I was basically neutral on France until I visited Paris for a week. I was looking forward to the trip, and we were treated like dirt. Why do I dislike Paris? Because the people there seem to detest Americans. I may visit the French countryside, where I’ve been told people are just as pleasant as country-dwellers everywhere else, but I don’t ever plan to go back to Paris again.
Before you start the “you must have been acting like an annoying American tourist” routine, I have thoroughly enjoyed trips to dozens of other countries, and never been treated as poorly as I was by the obnoxious people of Paris. In other countries, the locals appreciate a visitor who makes at least a nominal effort to learn a few words in their language. In Paris, if you have the wrong accent, I guess you’re a second-class citizen. I spent two years studying French, and I tried to speak it there when I could. Even though the people in Belgium, Quebec, and Switzerland could understand my crude French well enough to get along; shopkeepers, taxi drivers, and waiters in Paris couldn’t–and they were rude about it.
For reference, this was in the early 1980’s.
I think it might be because we haven’t fought with the French enough. The British, well, we mixed it up good with them in 1775 and 1812. We’re talking land invasions, naval battles, guerilla warfare, even an amphibious assault on England itself (Well, some sailors laned in a small town and stole the local lord’s silverware). After we finished with all that, we proceeded to be best buddies, like a couple of guys who get into a fight in a bar and buy eachother drinks.
We’re also on relatively friendly terms with a number of other countries we’ve fought pretty hard against, but we aren’t as close to them as we are as England possibly because the fighting was always done “over there”. Also possible because we can’t figure out what they’re saying (not that an Englishman, or for that matter, a fellow Texan, is very understandable once you get them rummed up enough )
So I think, in the name of international friendship, we should go to war with France. Since they’ve been invaded more times, I think they should get a handicap by being allowed to land an invasion force in the state of their choosing, which we will helpfully evacuate all of our military assets from beforehand. After the conclusion of hostilities, we shall go to London to sign a treaty and to get blitzed at a pub.
I agree with this your analysis here; while I personally do believe that American-style protection of personal liberties is the best possible basis for a democracy, I’ve noticed that my fellow Americans tend to react in shock and horror upon learning about things like Germany’s hate speech laws. I don’t favor hate speech laws myself, but I also don’t leap to the assumption that such a restriction is the first step down the slippery slope to tyranny. I think a lot of Americans know the basics of the American system from civics classes (and the Bill of Rights is one of the first things covered there) but most don’t know much of anything about other government systems and thus don’t really understand that not all working democracies operate the same ours does.
See what happens when I start composing my reply before finishing reading your post? Great minds, anyway.
The ironic part about this is that most Americans suddenly seem to wish to have an English-speaking society rather than a multicultural society (though, historically, that’s certainly the norm for Americans.) You’d be amazed - there’s a substantial minority of Americans that are seriously resentful at just hearing other languages or seeing that businesses in many areas cater to their non-English speaking customers. Though I’m not sure if they’re the same Americans who complain about the signs in Québec.
I still think it’s a weird thing for a government to care about, though.
But a lot more English speakers are affected by this; further, I would bet that in at least the great majority of Québec, there’s a lot more English speakers than there are French speakers in Vancouver. The bottom line is that the entire country is inconvenienced by the needs of one regional minority; you can compare the situation in Spain (just 'cause we’ve been talking about it around here lately) - there’s four languages with official status, but three of them are only official in their home territories. Hawai’ian and English are co-official in the state of Hawaii, and same for Spanish and English in New Mexico. I think this is a measure of Québec imposing itself on the rest of Canada.
Great idea! On behalf of NRA members and general gun-nuts everywhere, we welcome the arrival of our new targets. The pub better already be open, becuase this war will last about 30 minutes.
With all due respect, 1 week is no time at all, and Paris is not France - as you yourself have said. Furthermore, the attitude you perceived 20-something years ago used to be extended to everyone, regardless of origin. Thankfully, that has changed. Had I visited New York for a week in the early '80s, I might have concluded the same thing about the entire United States. Which, I’m sure you’d agree, would have been wrong.
But the comment was that Quebec ATTEMPTED to outlaw signage, which is indisputably true, severus. The original Bill 101, which was struck down by the Supreme Court, banned non-French commercial signage outright. The current version of the law, 178, was a compromise that followed that ruling - but it’s quite true that Quebec attempted to, and for a while succeeded, in the banning of such signage.
The attempt to ban such signage was seen as an attack on people’s freedoms. Perhaps most importantly, it was seen as a largely unnecessary attack; at the time 101 was passed any serious threat of French subsiding as Quebec’s majority language was already gone, and today it would be preposterous to claim that some English signs are going to threaten the status of French in Quebec. You’ll note that few people complain about most of the other aspects of Quebec’s unilingual status, because it’s certainly accepted that Quebec is, and should be, French. It was the sign law, specifically, that was seen as a threat to freedom of expression. It did not play well outside Quebec.
In any event, much of the bitterness and rivalry is merely due to the two groups merely not understanding or even knowing much about one another. I know, from firsthand experience, that the level of animosity tends to be vastly overhyped. In general, people get along fine.
That’s correct. That said, provinces vary in the degree of Frnacophone service they offer; Ontario is substantially bilingual in some respects.
I’m suprised that this thread has survived in GQ.
I certainly threw some gasoline on the fire but it’s been an interesting, enlightening discussion. Reading through it, it makes me want to say:
The Austrians are more German than the Germans and the Quebecers are more French than the French.
(And I don’t inherently dislike any of them.)
Now somebody can take off on the Austrians.
People “hate the French” for a number of reasons. Appuyez “un” pour une liste de ses raisons en francais. For an ENglish version, press “two”.
They perceive that others “hate the French”; xenophobia for social/political gain.
A fair proportion of French people are exceedingly arrogant and self-righteous.
French people tend to speak their minds.
French people tend to be protective of their rights, culture and language.
I like the Quebecois and the French, but they can be maddening. I lived in Montreal for five years up to 1996 and have also travelled around France a few times. My French is mediocre - I read it well, understand it passably and speak French with a foreign accent; folks understand everything I say, or far less.
The French (including Quebeckers) are unsurpassed, in my view, for style and creativity. I like their savoir vivre, surreal worldview, offbeat humour and stoicism. I like the French language and culture. I admire that they will state their opinion of something and accept the consequences for doing so. It is important to protect your rights, culture and language. I do think there is an element of jealousy regarding francophone savoir vivre.
I have met many insufferable francophones who I consider highly arrogant and annoying. But when I was at 1996 McGill, I saw equal arrogance from West Island Montreal anglophones and in the Montreal Gazette. I think Quebeckers should be proud of speaking French. I don’t want them in any way to feel like second class citizens. In general, I have received excellent and professional service at Quebec and Parisian establishments (with the exception of Paris cafes close to the Seine, all of whom prey on tourists and tried to rip me off). I have had the opportunity to meet hundreds of travelling Englanders while on vacation – who are unfailingly either charming and gracious, or complete arseholes – in short, a certain percentage of any group are insufferable and arrogant. I would say that service I have received in the United States is decidely third rate.
I have met many charming French people who have gone out of their way to do me a kindness. And I know this to be true because they told me that they went out of their way to do me a kindness. I’ve grown to admire this sort of frankness. I try to speak French to the many francophone patients we have near my town – and in Canada, Northern Ontario, Sudbury, towns near military bases and other enclaves are certainly somewhat bilingual.
In 1996, some Quebecois did seem to me to be “anti-Canadian” beyond having an understandable desire for self-determination and protection of their rights. These attitudes, in my limited view, seem to have largely disappeared among young Quebeckers. I would agree with Captain Amazing’s synopsis. I think all Canadians should learn PRACTICAL French in public school as a required subject (which they currently don’t). But I also remember the excesses of the Office de la Langue Francaise and wonder why I can receive tourist information in English in Paris but easier than in parts of Montreal (Bonjour, c’est STCUM…) – not that I have a “right” (or need) to do so, but merely as a gesture of goodwill towards tourists, if not a form of politesse.
I don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned this before, jjimm, but I really do enjoy your posts. You can correct people and impart information without the message feeling even slightly confrontational. I appreciate that.
No, I won’t form an opinion of France or the French people based on my week in Paris. I have a hard time not basing my opinion of the people of Paris on that week, though. A single day or a single event isn’t enough, but (realistic or not) a week seems to me to be enough time to form an opinion.
That doesn’t particularly make me want to return.
That, however, is different. I’m pleased to hear that, as there are places in Paris that I’d like to see again, and if .
I’ve lived in the U.S. my entire life–I was born in New York State–and I certainly wouldn’t want visitors to base their opinions of the American people on what they experience in New York City. Although, to be fair, I haven’t been to NYC in almost a decade, either. Maybe it’s improved.
Ah, regional humor. One of the funniest jokes of that type was told to me when I lived in Portugal: “The Spanish deserve the French as neighbors.”
For all our contempt for the French, our military sure draws upon them for its traditions.
Not just the current beret, but also the pisscutter and, going back a bit, the square-bill kepi of the Civil War are all from France (the barracks cover, however, is descended from German militia outfits of the Napoleonic era). the names of other uniform items such as epaulets, fourageres (those braided cords worn over the shoulder - which the 5th Marines were once so pleased to wear after being bestowed that honor by the French in WWI), augulets (the stems at the ends of those braids, and your shoelaces as well).
Enfilade, echlon, cadre, chevron… these aren’t Polish words. The bayonet wasn’t named after New Jersey’s Bayonne. And most of our bugle calls, including Taps, were deliberately borrowed from the French, not the British versions.
Even though we call them “cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” we sure seem to have studied the book of war as originally written in French.
Yes. Personally, I want to find a good mix between individual freedom and the good of the society. We need personal freedom, it is, as you say, the basis of democracy. But we also need to be part of a community that isn’t too fragmented. You mention this:
There are certainly Americans who simply dislike anything non-English. I like to think that most Americans do value personal freedom and will not care if people choose to speak other languages. But I’d also like to mention that, as been illustrated by the numerous recent threads on illegal immigration, there is a growing Hispanic minority in the US, and many Americans think, rightly or wrongly, that some people in this minority are having trouble integrating in their host society. We’ve read here the accounts of people who have had to hire people who weren’t able to speak their language, English, which is the working language of the American nation. It seems to me that, for those immigrants (legal or otherwise) to the US, choosing not to integrate in the English community is a valid exercise in personal freedom, but one that (probably rightfully) makes other Americans nervous, because it fragments their society. It means there will be people who will be living close to you but with whom you might not even be able to communicate.
This said, I don’t think that this is the motivation for most Americans with an “English-only” attitude, although for some it might be.
A lot of people in Quebec speak very little or no English. Today, you’ll mostly find them in the country and small villages, far from the cities or the boundary of English Canada or the US, but they still exist. Older people also are less likely to speak good English. My grandmother, who is an educated woman, having worked as a teacher for most of her life, speaks very little English, as did her now-deceased daughter, my aunt, who was also a teacher.
That depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, there is indeed a minority of Canadians who are French speakers (although it is a large minority), and they are mostly concentrated in Quebec (but not inexistant elsewhere), so it might make not very much sense to have both languages co-official in the entire country. On the other hand, the 1867 union between the former British North American colonies is seen by many people as an union between the English-speaking and French-speaking peoples of BNA, to create a new country where they would be equals. If you believe in this theory, it makes sense to have both languages co-official everywhere.
My own viewpoint might be somewhat similar to yours: I think we should all accept that Quebec is a French-speaking society and that English Canada is an English-speaking society. (I’m still not sure what to do with bilingual New Brunswick and Ontario where a large number of francophones live.) But even though the logical corollary of this would be to have French be the only official language of Quebec and English the only official language of the rest of Canada, even for the federal government, you’d get into a whole lot of trouble if you try this. Anglophone Quebecers and francophone Canadians would be incensed, as would Canadians whose national identity is tied to being citizens of a bilingual country. Having English official everywhere and French only official in Quebec, New Brunswick and maybe Ontario would be even worse, since it would imply that French is inferior to English, and paradoxically some anglophones in New Brunswick and Ontario would see a “French invasion” in this. And in any case, whatever you do, you still need some public servants in Ottawa who can work in both languages, since they will do business with people from the entire country. So it wouldn’t even really address the supposed inconvenience.
The only sensible thing to do is not to touch anything. This is why every attempt to do large modifications to Canada’s constitution since 1982, to accommodate English-speakers, French-speakers and aboriginals has failed. But of course, this has the effect of making a lot of people unhappy about the status quo. It’s not obvious what should be done about Canada.