🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <53unqp$4kv@Vir.com>, atp@vir.com (Michael Mell) writes:
>fawzi@vir.com (Fawzi) wrote:
>>> Is that your logic Fawzi?
>>> 
>>> Katie
>
>>No, not quite Katie.
>>And I don't know about the Quebec government, but I personaly think that
>>as soon as the aborigonal nations decide to be sovereign they may very
>>well do so, as soon as they negociate the portion of territory that should
>>be theirs.
>
>I've read academic claptrap before but this takes the case.
>
>I live here.  I drink bear, have a steak and watch Canadiens hockey
>next to people of the 'nation'.
>
>The intellectual separatist Francais like to compare themselves with
>the blue-collar English in an attempt to draw on differences.  
>
Rather interesting take on it.

>Most of you outside the province are trying to be very understanding,
>but what you're failing to get is that this 'nation' BS is just that.

Being understanding is a frustrating exercise- but thank god I've managed to
find many Quebecois (both sovereignist and federalist) on the usenet news that
I enjoy conversing with.

>It's a creation on the part of what goes for an intellectual elite
>over here to convince those who should know better that 
>  ..."they are a people who are very different from everyone else in
>the world and under some imperialistic yolk..."
>
>They're calling themselves a 'nation' like they evolved here should be
>an insult to your intelligence.  But from what I've read, it seems
>otherwise.  So let's take it from the top.
>
It is otherwise- contrary to my arguments with Fawzi, I really do agree with
him that Quebec compromises a nation.  The distinctions are secondary- it is
the psychology which most differs nations from cultural jurisdictions.  A case
in point- if Quebecers had all of their current distinctiveness, but didn't ask
for any cultural concessions, would the issue of "nation" even come up?  If
there was no sovereignist movement, and no renewed federalist element in
Quebec, would the lines be clear to anyone?  

>Their 'nation' is essentially French speaking immigrants which have
>been over here for over 150 years (more or less).  
>
Much more...

>How is that different from English speaking immigrants which have been
>over hear for at least two generations?  Working, eating, drinking,
>going to school here in Quebec I can tell you, the differences are
>real......real slight.  If we exclude language (and politics), there

Well, Quebecers will argue that language cannot be excluded because it's a
fundamental reflection of their culture- but I do understand what you're
saying.

>is much less difference between a French Montrealer, English
>Torontonian, American Bostonian, than there is between a New Yorker
>and a Texan.  And the differences between a French Canadian and any
>American pales in comparison to a French Canadian and the French from
>France.
>
Yeah well, I'd suggest that on these grounds, excluding language AND politics,
you can virtually compare anyone in the world with anyone else.  Ideology is
important however- and according to that week long "National" magazine, 80% of
Americans and Canadians in average cities considered their nationality a
fundamental component of their identity.

>But, for the sake of argument, let's call'em a nation.
>
>Now, which nation is this?
>
>Is this the nation of French speaking immigrants which have ancestry
>over 150 years and still live in Quebec vs the nation of French
>speaking immigrants who have ancenstry over 150 years and are no
>longer in Quebec for any reason? I'm sure our elitist friend would
>agree that his entire definition of the Quebec nation is not based on
>the fact that they elect the provincial government of Quebec!
>
>Therefore, French Canadians outside of Quebec would also be part of
>this new 'nation'.
>
>So, the theory must be: If within a specific political unit there is a
>majority of the population which has been defined to constitute a
>nation then they must have the right to vote to secede from any
>political unit to which this political unit belongs.
>
>Woo!  We can see suburbs of Vancouver and Toronto going to the
>Chinese.   We can see the Ukraine decendants taking over large
>territories in the midwest.  The Acadians can have their chunk of New
>Brunswick  
>
Assuming, of course, that the love of Ukrainians, Chinese and Acadiens rescinds
to the point that they would vote in large numbers to separate from Canada- but
personally, I don't see that happening.

>It's ridiculous.  There are often many nations under the flag of any
>one country.  Nations are not restricted to political boundries.  
>
>Quebec is a political structure.  Even if there exists in the borders
>of Quebec a majority of people who make up a 'nation' it doesn't
>provide any rights to take territory out of this particular or any
>political structure.  None!
>
Let's get one point straight- Quebec as a territory has existed for well over
300 years in some form or another, but has always been the home of the
Francophone majority.  From the time it was Nouveau France, to the time it was
lower Canada, to the time it became Quebec- it has always been home to a
populace that has thought of themselves differently.  

During the time that it was a colony under France, Quebec had been developing
as a fledgling nation- that is why there are two views of the defeat of 1759
which prevailed within the community back then.  One view, supported by much of
the religious elite (supposedly) was that the Conquest was good because it
spared Quebec from, among other things, the French revolution, the corruption
of French values, etc....  These beliefs were largely held by the one's with
the most to gain- the British had agreed to grant these individuals a great
deal of power over Quebec.

Much more numerous however was the opinion of some religious elite and Quebec's
urban upper-middle class- that the Conquest only served to inhibit Quebec's
natural progression towards official nationhood.  Depending upon who you talk
to, the lower and upper-middle class in rural centres also were staunchly
supportive of this belief.

Now I don't want to get too much into Quebec history on can.english- but the
point here is that from the time it was a colony, to the present day, the
Quebecers have been different in the sense that they always believed they
were destined to become a nation.  

>Finally, my daughter is French-Indian-Austrian-Irish-Welch.  Does this
>disqualifier her from the French nation since she's only part French?
>Does she have to get together with a bunch of other
>French-Indian-Austrian-Irish-Welch to form a new
>'French-Indian-Austrian-Irish-Welch' nation?
>
I don't think most Quebecois have tried to be "exclusive" in who comprises part
of the "Quebec" nation- and I think that any remarks to the contrary (ie.
Bouchard's slip up which was blown out of proportion) are really not worth
considering.  You have extremists, and then you have the average citizen- and
in Quebec, 60% of the "average" Francophones did vote to become a sovereign
state.  Don't forget this fact, or assume that it's unimportant.

>My point is this 'nation' crap is nothing more than applied racism.

I don't agree- the point of recognizing a "nation" of Quebec is to protect a
culture which has existed in North America for more than 300 years.  A
sovereignist friend of mine made a lot of sense one time when he said "it's one
thing to allow for one to retain their homeland culture- but it's quite another
when we're actively promoting it.  It's almost like saying that the culture
which already exists here isn't important to who and what we are."  In
otherwords, it's one thing to say that we will protect Croat Canadians from
ethnic discrimination here in Canada- but it should be a wake up call to
everyone when, during a Croatia vs. Canada basketball game in Toronto, many of
these hyphenated Canadians who were in fact born in Canada were cheering from
the Croats and against team Canada.  No, there's no obligation to cheer for
Canada- but more and more it is beginning to seem as though for at least some
immigrant groups, Canada is nothing more than a home away from home.  It's
horrible for me to witness it happening in Canada....and if Quebecers don't
want to see it happen in Quebec, I can't say that I blame them.

>It's not the dull thoughtless racism we're use to associating with
>that term.  No, it's the carefully camouflaged racism which is being
>spoonfeed to the population to make them believe racism, their racism,
>is ok.
>
A rather profound attack, isn't it?  Personally, I don't agree- I don't believe
that it's racist to want to preserve, protect and promote a culture that has
existed for 300 years.  I do, however, think it's tragic that the attempts to
protect that culture have become equated with sovereignty- and it's doubly
tragic that a people trying to struggle for their cultural survival are accused
of racism.

>It's not the first time in history that this has been done, not by a
>long shot, and 'if we don't learn from our mistakes we will be doomed
>to repeat them'.
>
Yeah well, I don't want to return to this argument.