Oh, and RickJay, if I have the time, I’ll try to find what were the arguments in favour of the clauses of bill 101 dealing with commercial signage when it was promulgated. However, while there are many compelling reasons to ensure that commercial signage in Quebec is in French, I must say that none of the reasons to have it only in French that I’ve thought about seem compelling to me. In other words, you’re probably right that this was a mistake on the part of the government. But even though it might have been seen as an attack on English in the rest of Canada, I don’t think it was the intention.
The British conservatives hated the French Revolution. Many rightwingers in the U
The British ruling class hated the French Revolution. They and the American right still want to reverse it.
The French tended to have a somewhat more independent line in Europe during the Cold War. In the sixties, they pulled their troops out of the joint NATO command, which was led by the US. Hence, everything is done to promote “soft” propaganda against the French.
The British fought an action there too, many French were evacuated alongside the British. Its the Belgians who got a raw deal out of it all IIRC.
Huh? How do you figure that?
Sailboat
I’m not sure I agree with that. I don’t think that many Americans object to hearing another language: they object to being excluded within their own country.
Case in point: I used to live in a city with a large Indian (as in India, not as in First Nation) population. I love Indian food, and have no objection to their culture whatsoever. The majority of them were American citizens, and many were respected members of the community, including doctors, attorneys, and business owners.
I objected, however, when a shopping center was constructed near my home with no English signage at all. I would have been happy to patronize their businesses, but they clearly weren’t interested in non-Hindi-speaking customers. Were there signs in Hinda and English, I think they would have been welcomed. Since they excluded non-Indians, they were resented.
Are you being serious? On review I thought my post could have been interpreted as condescending. But I’ll take it at face value and say thanks. 
I can understand that. I make judgements like that all the time, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Sort of analogous to that, I’m meeting an old schoolfriend tomorrow who really pissed me off in the past. It’s the first time I’ll have seen him since he pissed me off - but talking to another schoolfriend on the phone today, we established that the incident that pissed me (and my other friend) off happened exactly twenty years ago, and we laughed about it in that context. I’ll reserve judgement…
I promise you, it’s changed a lot.
In my experience, it really has too. In fact, it’s my favorite city in the world.
One point I think that hasn’t been addressed is that the French, of all the major European nations, weren’t a major part of any of the waves of immigration to the US, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: as far as I’m aware the only real French influence in the US was relatively early on in Louisiana, and that from displaced Canadians.
Countries like Italy, Germany, Ireland and Poland recently established and maintained what might be termed a popular consular presence, and the English and {to a lesser extent, via Mexico and an early North American presence} Spanish influences have been pervasive from the outset.
The French, on the other hand, have mostly been “foreign”, and thus an easy object of distrust and demonisation, particularly post-WWII when American interests and influence really began to expand into Europe and Asia, and often ran foul of French ambitions and aspirations to still be considered as a global player.
Yes, I am. There isn’t a “no, I’m not being ironic or snarky” smiley, so I was a bit concerned you’d take it that way. I did mean it.
The French came to Wisconsin for fur trading. We have French explorers and settler names on some parks and streets. A few cities in Wisconsin were named after French or were supposed to be if the US mail hadn’t registered the town wrong. They did a lot of that.
We also have many French place names in Arkansas, including a Paris. They used to own us, you know.
The previous two posters have mentioned the Louisiana purchase. Don’t forget what a huge chunk of the U.S. Napoleon purchased for France. Many of the mountain men in Montana were French (or French-Canadian).
Overall, though, you have a point. French immigration has never reached the scale of what the U.S. has had from England, Spain, Ireland, Germany, Scotland, China, Italy, Poland, and more recently countries like Mexico, Vietnam, and Japan.
Actually, I don’t believe WS was in the LAP.
I hate to bolster that swamp idea Mark Twain began, but Arkansas Post was moved about by the French and eventually failed because it continually flooded. Of course, it had to be near the river to be a trading post. My point being, I don’t think there was a great rush of French settlers like there was in New England. Just some really unsocial guys looking for furs, and of course the Spaniards looking for gold.
I apologize. Wisconsin is of course abbreviated WI. Things for my state, AR often wind up in Alaska, AK.
Also, in regard to the French, if we consider “everbody” from the OP, the French don’t exactly have a stellar record in regard to to their colonial exploits.
The “Hanoi Hilton” with its tiger cages was built by the French for use on the Vietnamese.
Well, the arguments are no different from the arguments for any other of Quebec’s past or present language laws; the theory that, unless French is legally protected as the language of choice to some degree, it’ll be overwhelmed by English. This is certainly not a belief that is entirely without merit; other minority languages have vanished in various times and places. It seems a bit spurious in Quebec, where French has never been seriously in danger of winking out of existence.
I think part of the animosity around this sort of thing can be attributed to two points;
- English Canadians generally do not appreciate how French Canadians were treated in the past, and
- Everything the government of Quebec is doing is rooted in the past.
It’s plainly the truth that for a hundred years the Francophone was treated as a second class citizen in his own country. It’s also plainly true, however, that it hasn’t been that way for forty years and it’s silly to pass laws as if it still is. But on both sides you have some folks who don’t want to learn the truth.
But you answered your own question. Nothing has to be done. The country works phenomenally well. It would be the height of stupidity to do anything more than the usual evolutionary, day-to-day stuff.
However, while there are many compelling reasons to ensure that commercial signage in Quebec is in French, I must say that none of the reasons to have it only in French that I’ve thought about seem compelling to me. In other words, you’re probably right that this was a mistake on the part of the government. But even though it might have been seen as an attack on English in the rest of Canada, I don’t think it was the intention.
[/QUOTE]
The french are just so full of themselves and so damn unlovable.
The French also conduct systematic industrial espionage on the United States. Airbus is founded on stolen secrets from Boeing. That and the fact that they don’t care what kinds of crooks they deal with. One reason they were opposed to the Iraq war was they were up to their eyeballs in dealls with Saddam.
This is not an exclusively French habit; it’s big business for everyone.
[/quote]
A) this is a very tenuous claim, and B) Cough
And the reserve is largely true, though apparently you don’t hear about it. Industrial spying in allied countries became one of the main businesses of western intelligence services after the fall of the Soviet Union. Actually, the USA is the country french high tech companies are the most concerned about regarding industrial spying. And apart industrial “technical” spying , there is also spying when important companies are in concurrence to sign important contracts. I thought I would mention it since you mentionned Airbus/Boeing and one of the last such cases that made the paper (these issues rarely do, that’s “gentlemen spying”, after all) precisely involved the USA spying on Airbus on behalf of Boeing.
This motive doesn’t make sense. Keep in mind that everybody knew well in advance that the USA would attack Irak no matter what and that everybody too knew who would win, and ask yourself what french companies that had interests in Irak or could potentially have interests in Irak were lobbying for at this time. Yes, you found the right answer : in favor of a french involvment so that they could keep their contracts/ sign new juicy ones after the war.
The french position re the war in Irak was politically, not economically, motivated.
Americans blame France for the mime, strange clowns, strangers kissing, and snails at dinner. We also want you to take Jerry Louis. Please!