🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fawzi-0910961050420001@news1.vir.com>, fawzi@vir.com says...
>
>In article (Dans l�article) <325a9b8d.19634576@47.128.136.92>,
>pbennett@nortel.ca (Paul J. Bennett) wrote (�crivait)�:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Oct 1996 10:03:29 -0400, fawzi@vir.com (Fawzi) wrote:
>>  
>> >And freely translated from Le Petit Robert (with personal anotation
>s...)
>> >
>> >Nation [nasjo~]
>> >  1- Group of men of a supposed common origin.
>> >      (Apllies to Quebec)
>> 
>> Fawzi,
>> 
>> This might be your perception of Quebec. But not all citizens of
>> Quebec share the same origins; there can be differences in culture,
>> language, and political goals,
>
>Broaden your perception a little... The same can be said about any nation
>in the world.  Yet, most french come from France, most mexicans come from
>Mexico, and most quebecers come from Quebec (except for mom and dad of
>course... ;-)  )
>
BCers live in B.C., just as Quebecers live in Quebec, so?
>> 
>> >  2- Human "ensemble", generaly vast enough, caracterized by the co
>nscience
>> >     of its unity, and the will to live in common.
>> >     [See: A people]
>> >      (Applies to Quebec)
>> 
>> Uhh. This one does not apply Quebec. Not all people share the same
>> "conscience" - how else do you explain the overwhelming NON votes in
>> western Quebec, Nouveau Quebec and L'Estrie? 
>>
Gee, just like in B.C.'s last election, it was almost half and half
for the N.D.P. and the B.C. Liberals(Who aren't even as close to 
the feds as the Quebec Liberals.).
 
>> If the question was about separation, then it is quite obvious that
>> some regions/people had no desire to live in Quebec as a separate
>> country.
>> 
>> Your definition applies only to those who share the view that
>> separation is a desireable goal.
>
>Broaden your perception a little...  Conscience of unity goes further 
>than
>sharing the same political idea, its a question of cultural identity. 
>Most french feel french, most mexicans feel mexican, and most qu�b�cois
>feel qu�b�cois (and that is no political statement, but a cultural one.)  
>
Once a BCer, always a BCer.:)  Just look at how many have visited
and never left.
>
>> >  3- Human "ensemble" constituting a political community, establish
>ed
>> >     on a defined territory or an "ensemble" of defined territories
>,
>> >     and personified by a sovereign authority.
>> >       (Applies to Quebec, except that the sovereignty of the
>> >        "authority" is subject to interpretation...)
>> 
>> This might be a more accurate definition. However, the territory is
>> subject to debate....... (re: legal interpretation of Quebec's
>> territories based on treaties, acts of parliament, etc, as well as
>> First Nations' land claims and actions)
>
>Thank you, I'm sure Robert (not the one that passed away...)  will be 
>very
>happy to know that you agree with his definition.
>And I believe that on every map in the world Quebec's territory is
>defined.  Also, by your argumentation, most countries that contain
>aborigonal nation that make territorial claims are not nations.
>
Sounds like Canada, according to Bouchard.;)
> 
>> >  4- The "ensemble" of individuals that compose this group.
>> 
>> 
>> >So Quebec is indeed a nation within a nation, as are the aborinal n
>ations.
>> 
>> That is an okay definition by me. However, this view can be used to
>> argue that Newfoundland is a nation, the maritimes are a nation, the
>> praries are a nation, BC is a nation, etc.
>
>Funny how your perception suddenly broadens...
>
If it's good enough for Quebec, why not for the rest of the
defined areas with their corresponding peoples in the ROC?
>
>> The First Nations, however, see themselves as a nation within Canada.
>> They do not see themselves as a nation within a nation within a
>> nation. It is their express desire to remain within the jurisdiction
>> of Canada. That is unless the government of Quebec provides them with
>> sufficient motivation to decide otherwise....
>>
>> This arguing over semantics is not advancing anyone's argument. The
>> issue here is the right to self-determination of the founding
>> nations/culture within Quebec.
>
>
>No, the issue is first to know what a nation is, and to recognize Quebec
>as such.
>
Only if you recognize Canada first.:)

G.C.